IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2008 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2002 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.3937/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.104/07 OF RAJAKKADU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED ---------------------------- PIOUS, S/O.VARKEY, MANGALATHU HOUSE KALLIMALI KARA, RAJAKKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2002 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are four accused persons. 2 litres of arrack and 1800 litres of wash were allegedly seized on 27/6/2007 from the catchment area of Ponmudi Dam. No person was present when the seizure was effected and no one was arrested. Investigation reveals that the four accused persons are the persons who indulged in such activity and that the contraband articles were left there by the accused persons. The third accused was arrested and his interrogation confirms the said conclusion. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ill. He has some psychiatric ailment. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever available in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be B.A.No.2002/08 2 directed to appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2002/08 3 B.A.No.2002/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007