IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1963 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 84/08 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ @ NAVAS, S/O.UMMER KOYAMKODAN HOUSE, RANDAM MILE CHEMMALASSERY P.O., PULAMANTHOLE VILLAGE PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTATHUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the third accused in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w. 149 I.P.C. as also for the offence punishable under the M.M.D.R. Act. The crux of the allegations is that a police party found an autorikshaw loaded with river sand. They intercepted the vehicle, wanted to effect arrest of the miscreants and seizure of the autorikshaw. A group of persons, 20 in number, allegedly deterred the police party from discharge of their official duty. Four named persons and 16 others are shown as accused in the F.I.R. Petitioner is one of the four named. The first accused was arrested at the spot. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has been seized and the first accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The allegations are false and B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 2 incorrect. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. 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 am unable to perceive any 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. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 3 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