IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1176 of 2008() ----------------------------- O.R.NO.2/2008 OF THE NILAMBUR FOREST RANGE .................... PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.KUNHIPOCKER KAIPANCHERY HOUSE, PULLANKODE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NOUSHAD ALI, S/O.KUNHUMUHAMMED CHEMBAN KUYYAN HOUSE, AMBALAKADAVU P.O. KALIKAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, NILAMBUR FOREST RANGE - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY P.P. SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1176 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 and 3. Altogether, there are 7 accused persons. The petitioners face allegations under the Kerala Forest Act and the Wildlife Protection Act. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they, along with 5 others, had trespassed into the reserve forest with the intention of hunting. When the forest party detected the offence, only the 1st accused could be arrested. All the other six took to their heels and could not be apprehended. The 1st accused was arrested. From his possession, a gun and bullets were seized which were brought into the forest allegedly for the purpose of hunting. After interrogating the 1st accused, the complicity of all the details of the other accused were revealed and they are named in the seizure mahazar and the occurrence report. The B.A. No. 1176 of 2008 -: 2 :- petitioners had not been arrested so far. Only the 1st accused has been apprehended. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. At any rate, their custodial interrogation is unnecessary and anticipatory bail may be granted, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are no circumstances in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any circumstances that can persuade me to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the B.A. No. 1176 of 2008 -: 3 :- Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge