IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2007 / 9TH ASWINA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 5712 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRMP.2847/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.445/07 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. S. BABU, AGED 56, S/O. SUDEVAN, SUPRABHATHAM, VELLAPILMUKU, MAYANNAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. VIJAYAN, AGED 46, S/O. MADAVAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, DAVALAKUZHI, AKOLILCHERRY, MAYANNAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. RATNAKARAN, AGED 50, S/O. GANGADHARAN, KODIYIL, PUTHEN VEEDU, AKOLILCHERRY, MAYANNAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.5712 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1, 3 & 4. The gist of the allegations against them is that when the police party, led by the Circle Inspector of Police, reached the spot, they were found engaging themselves - 9 named persons including the petitioners and 21 others, in the conduct of illicit removal of sand belonging to the local authority. On seeing the police party, the accused ran away. Only some of them could be apprehended. 9 persons including the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. The petitioners could not be arrested at the scene. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false. The 1st accused was engaged in the activity of shrimp farming in his own property. He was engaged in such activity for a long period of time. It was from his own property that he was undertaking the operation. Bunds were being constructed to prevent the escape of shrimps from his farm to the river. It was in the course of such attempt that the police came to the scene and raised unnecessary and vexatious allegations against the petitioners. B.A.No.5712 of 2007 2 In these circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications suggest that the petitioners were involved continuously in the activity of illicit removal of sand belonging to the local authority. At the moment and with the available inputs, there is absolutely nothing to assume that the petitioners were not indulging in the objectionable activity of removal of sand belonging to the local authority. In these circumstances, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. A detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations and the credibility of the data collected is not necessary now. Suffice it to say that on a total evaluation of all the relevant circumstances, I find no features in this case which 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 petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. B.A.No.5712 of 2007 3 5. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for regular 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/-