IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1634 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.348/08 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. JALEEL, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, KIZHAKKEN HOUSE, THANDEKKADU, VENGOLA VILLAGE. 2. YOUSUF,AGED 20 YEARS S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, KIZHAKKEN HOUSE, THANDEKKADU, VENGOLA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1634 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are brothers. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under the Copy Rights Act. The crux of the allegations is that about 800 compact discs offending the provisions of the Copy Rights Act were available in the possession of the petitioners in a room in their possession where they were transacting such business. The crime was registered on 05.03.08. The petitioners have not been arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The recovery has been effected from some neighbouring house which is not in the possession of the petitioners. They are being vexed and harassed unnecessarily, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications clearly point to the complicity of the petitioners. The petitioners are the adult male members occupying the house. The contemporaneous statement made by their mother reveals that the petitioners had indulged in the objectionable activities. B.A.No.1634 of 2008 2 In any view of the matter there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary couse, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. 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 agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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.1634 of 2008 3