IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7068 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME 312/05 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PRAMODRAJ P.N. AGED 32 YEARS S/O.PRABHAKARAN P.K. NEYTHIARUPARAMBIL, ANAPARAMBAL THEKKUM MURI THALAVADY VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAISHANKAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALAL AT ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANDALAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7068 OF 2007 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 O R D E R There is no representation for the petitioner. This application is for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a crime registered under Section 379 IPC. 2. The allegations relate to commission of theft of a motor vehicle. Crime No.312/05 of Pandalam police station has been registered in respect of the theft of the said vehicle. The vehicle was later seized from the possession of the 1st accused. The statement of the 1st accused revealed the alleged involvement of two other accused, who have now arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. It is the allegation of the prosecution that accused Nos.2 and 3 were responsible for the handing over of the vehicle to the possession of A1 through one Subramanian, a resident of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner had appeared before BA.7068/07 : 2 : the investigating officer but he did not allegedly co-operate with the investigator. He deserves to be interrogated in detail. Attempt must be made to trace the vehicle. At any rate, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail when he faces interrogation. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor. No circumstances are shown to insist 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 petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer BA.7068/07 : 3 : 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) aks