Padmini vs Excise Inspector Of Police on 25 September, 2007

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Padmini vs Excise Inspector Of Police on 25 September, 2007

Bench: R.Basant

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5766 of 2007()


1. PADMINI, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. EXCISE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :25/09/2007

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.5766 of 2007
                       -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 25th day of September, 2007

                                   ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, a woman, faces allegations under the Kerala Abkari Act. She was allegedly found to be in possession of 4 litres of arrack on 18.07.05. She was not arrested as the detecting party did not consist of any woman official. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. The petitioner is the accused in one more crime under the Kerala Abkari Act, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner.

3. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor . The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the normal course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . B.A.No.5766 of 2007 2

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the objection by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course.

5. This B.A is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court