High Court Kerala High Court

Vasantha vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2007

Kerala High Court
Vasantha vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7451 of 2007()


1. VASANTHA, W/O. MADHAVA PANICKER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :05/12/2007

 O R D E R
                              R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.7451 of 2007
                      -------------------------------------
             Dated this the 5th day of December, 2007

                                   ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner, a woman, faces

allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found

to be in possession of 10 litres of arrack on 10.08.07. She was

not arrested as the detecting party did not consist of any woman

officials. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends

imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. Her husband was taken into

custody on 10.08.07 and he developed illness. He eventually

breathed his last on 5.10.07. To cover up any possible

allegations against the excise officials of responsibility for the

death of her husband, a false case has been manufactured

against the petitioner. Directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may,

in these circumstances, be issued, submits the learned counsel

for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that while it is true that

against the husband of the petitioner, there are other crimes,

B.A.No.7451 of 2007 2

they have nothing to do with the detection of offence in the

instant case. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before

the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and seek

regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit

in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable

to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant

the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the

petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having

jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the

regular and ordinary course.

5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,

but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders

before the Investigating Officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

B.A.No.7451 of 2007 3