IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 656 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.28/08 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 5 & 6 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAMEER @ BAVA, S/O.YOOSAF, CHALIL HOUSE, NOORADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SHIHAB, S/O.HAMZA, CHANDRAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, POTTIPARA, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.656 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 5 and 6. When the defacto complainant/informant/Circle Inspector inspected a premises on 08.01.08, the petitioners herein were allegedly seen engaged in the activity of running a brothel. Accused 1 to 4 are women who were allegedly employed by the petitioners as sex workers in such brothel. The premises have been taken on lease by the 5th accused. Petitioners who were available at the scene had allegedly taken to their heels on seeing the detecting police party. Accused 1 to 4 were arrested and enlarged on bail. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally incorrect and unsustainable. Even assuming the allegations to be correct, the detection and the consequent proceedings are without any authority as the detecting officer, a Sub Inspector, is not notified under the B.A.No.656 of 2008 2 relevant provisions of the Immoral Traffic Preventiuon Act and he is hence not competent to conduct such a raid/search, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the argument is built on a wrong and factually incorrect premise. The detecting Officer is not a Sub Inspector of Police, but is a Circle Inspector of Police, who, as per the notification, is legally competent to conduct search/raid of the premises while taking action under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms from the case diary and the F.I.R that the detecting officer was not a S.I, but was a C.I of the area concerned. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in that contention regarding the competence of the detecting officer who detected the crime. 5. Though it is contended that there is no worthwhile and sustainable allegations against accused 5 and 6, I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that accused 5 B.A.No.656 of 2008 3 had taken the building on lease as per a written agreement and that accused 5 and 6, who were present at the scene and were actually running the illegal activity, had taken to their heels when the detecting officer reached the scene. I am, in any view of the matter, not satisfied that there are any features 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 petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.656 of 2008 4