IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2493 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 618/07 OF SASTHAMKOTTA POLICE STATION) .............. PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- C.R.CHANDRAMOHANAN, KUTTIYIL PUTHENVEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2493 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under section 409 IPC. He was the Secretary of a Government Employees' Co-operative Society. During the period 1.4.04 to 31.3.05 he is alleged to have misappropriated the amount for about Rs.2,00,000/-. FIR was registered on 30.11.07 on the basis of an enquiry report. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. Political rivalry between factions is prompting the authorities to raise vexatious allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances BA.2493/08 : 2 : whatsoever justifying or warranting the invocation of the discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 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 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) aks