IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1449 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.14/08 OF KASABA POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- K.P.ABDUL SALAM, S/O UMMER, AGED 27 YEARS, BAITHUL FATHIMA, PARAKKANDY THAZHAM, NALLALAM AMSOM,DESOM, AREEKKAD, KOZHIKODE-27. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.1449 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations under Sec.52A read with Sec.63 of the Copy Right Act and Sec.292 (ii)(a) of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused, is that when a police party, on receipt of discreet prior information that C.Ds. offending the Copy Right Act and the law relating to obscenity were stored in a premises, inspected the premises and came across such offending C.Ds. in such premises. The person, who was present there in the premises, informed the detecting officer that he had got the offending articles from a neighbouring shop keeper who was named – that is the petitioner herein – the 2nd accused. The detecting party then proceeded to the adjacent room and a search was conducted B.A. No.1449 of 2008 -: 2 :- there. The petitioner was, of course, not present in the premises at the time of the search. In such other premises also the detecting party was able to locate and seize the C.Ds. which infringed the Copy Right Act and the law relating to obscenity. Seizure was effected separately from the two premises. An F.I.R. was registered. The petitioner is shown as the 2nd accused in the F.I.R. The 1st accused was arrested at the spot. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner - 2nd accused, apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He admits that prior to the date of the seizure, as per a document admittedly executed, he is shown to be the person in possession of the premises. But the petitioner advances a contention that though the document so recites, exclusive vacant possession of the building has not been handed over to the petitioner and the articles found in the premises which as per the document is in his possession were left there by his landlord or the previous occupant, according to the petitioner, i.e., the 1st accused himself. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may take note of the date of the document under B.A. No.1449 of 2008 -: 3 :- which the entrustment was made which is 8/12/07; where as the seizure was effected only on 11/1/08. 3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. At the moment and with the available inputs it is idle to assume that the room in question was not in the possession of the petitioner or that the petitioner is not responsible for the articles found available in the premises. 4. The Case Diary has been placed before me for my perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the same. I take note of the fact that the 1st accused even at the time of seizure is revealed to have been in possession of the offending articles. Taking all the relevant inputs into account, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with B.A. No.1449 of 2008 -: 4 :- the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge