IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1902 of 2008() ----------------------------- O.R.NO.3/08 OF PALAKKAYAM FOREST STATION : PETITIONER --------------------------- PIUS ABRAHAM, S/O ABRAHAM, CHETTIYATH THACHAMPARA, MANNARKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- DEPUTY RANGER, PALAKKAYAM FOREST STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1902 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the fourth accused. Altogether there are four accused persons. They face allegations under the Wild Life Protection Act. All the four accused allegedly trespassed into a reserve forest and killed a sambar deer and allegedly indulged in the culpable conduct of sale of the meat of such animal. None of the accused could be apprehended on the date of the occurrence. The others surrendered on 18/2/2008. They have already been enlarged on bail as per order dated 04/03/2008 in B.A.No.1341 of 2008. The petitioner was not available for arrest so far. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that satisfactory materials have been collected against the petitioner herein also. His complicity is revealed from the documents available in this case. The petitioner must also, like the co- accused, surrender before the investigating officer or the B.A.No.1902/08 2 learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. There are no circumstances whatsoever justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioner, 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 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) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1902/08 3 B.A.No.1902/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007