IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 417 of 2008()
1. RAMANAN,S/O.JANARDHANAN,OLICKAL VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE EXCISE INSPECTOR,CHITTAR RANGE
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 417 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. On 3.1.2008 he was
allegedly carrying 1.95 litres of arrack. Seeing the Excise party,
he allegedly abandoned the article and took to his heels. He
could not be apprehended. The contemporaneous seizure
mahazar and occurrence report do clearly reveal the complicity of
the petitioner. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. According to the petitioner, the allegations are all false.
No incident as alleged had taken place on 3.1.2008. On 1.1.2008
there was some earlier incident and the Excise party, on account
of ill-will arising out of that incident, has falsely implicated the
petitioner in the incident on 3.1.2008. The petitioner does not
deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be
granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel.
B.A.No. 417 of 2008
2
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. Allegations
are all correct. Investigation so far conducted confirms the allegations
against the petitioner. The contemporaneous seizure mahazar and
occurrence report reveal the complicity of the petitioner beyond doubt.
At any rate, at the moment there is no material on the basis of which
this Court can entertain the satisfaction that the allegations are raised
falsely and with vexatious intent. He may be directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any
features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra
ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the
petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must
resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the
Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek
regular bail in the ordinary course.
B.A.No. 417 of 2008
3
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned
Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice
to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must
proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm