IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 566 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 307/07 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SANTHOSH, AGED 30 YEARS, UMMACHAN, CHIRAKARATHU PUTHANPURACKAL, RAJAKKANDAM P.O., VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, REP.THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 566 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether there are three accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that the Vandanmedu police, on receipt of discreet prior information, seized sandalwood pieces from the house of the 1st accused. When the police party reached, accused Nos.1 to 3 were allegedly there. On seeing the police party, accused Nos.1 and 2 took to their heels and could not be arrested. The 3rd accused was arrested. He was interrogated. The identity of accused Nos.1 and 2 were ascertained from A3. All the three accused have been arrayed as accused. The crime registered by the police has been transferred to the Kumali Forest Range for investigation. O.R.No.103/07 has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BA.566/08 : 2 : the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The house in question does not belong to the petitioner even admittedly. The theory that he was seen running away from the scene of the crime is absolutely unjustified. Merely on the statement of the 3rd accused, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused and it is not justified. The petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available indications clearly suggest that the petitioner was also present in the house, where the contraband articles were stored. The petitioner had ran away from the scene of the crime which would also point to the complicity of the petitioner. Investigation also reveals that the petitioner was present there and he was also a party to the clandestine and illegal transaction in sandalwood which was taking place in that house. The petitioner has to be interrogated to successfully complete the investigation. Grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would hamper the course of an effective BA.566/08 : 3 : investigation, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify 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. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer 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