IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1499 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.3/08 OF SULTHAN BATHERY FOREST RANGE CRMP.385/2008 of ADDL. DIST. COURT (ADHOC)-II, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------- K.G.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, KUZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.T.R.SASI(K/651/1990) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, SULTHAN BATHERY, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1499 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. He faces allegations under Wild Life Protection Act. Altogether there are two accused persons. The first accused was intercepted by the forest officials with the skin of Tiger. When arrested and intercepted, he revealed that he had received the contraband article from the petitioner. That is how the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioner he is absolutely innocent. He is an autorikshaw driver. There is some strain in the relationship between accused 1 and 2. The first accused is a habitual offender involving in forest offences. He has given the name of the petitioner. There is no other material to connect the petitioner with the crime. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No. 1499 of 2008 2 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available indications do satisfactorily point to the complicity of the petitioner. He has to be interrogated. Only if such interrogation reveals the need to arrest the petitioner, shall he be arrested. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find no 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 usual course. The theory advanced that there is animosity between accused 1 and 2 is not supported or rendered probable by any materials available. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned B.A.No. 1499 of 2008 3 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