IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 945 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.307/07 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- JAYAN, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, CHELLARKOVIL KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION, REP. THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.945 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that sandal wood to the extent of 10 kg. were available in the house of the 1st accused without any satisfactory explanation. When the detecting party reached the scene of the crime, accused 1 and 2 took to their heels. The 3rd accused was arrested. Identity of the 1st and 2nd accused was ascertained from the 3rd accused. The application of the 2nd accused for anticipatory bail was dismissed as per order dated 08.02.08. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The house in question does not belong to the petitioner. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected for the same reason on which the application of the co-accused was B.A.No.945 of 2008 2 rejected as per order dated 08.02.08 in B.A.566 of 2008. Even assuming that the house does not belong to the petitioner, the petitioner was allegedly found available there and had run away on seeing the police party. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.945 of 2008 3