IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1154 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.29/08 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD PETITIONER/A2 ----------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O.SIVASENAN,COMPANY KULAM, COMPANY KULAM,PANASNGATTIRI P.O.,VALLEKKAD, KULLANGODE. BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1154 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are three accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons committed theft of spirit in cans kept in the premises of the Excise office on the night of 20.1.2008. The spirit in cans were available in the premises. Such contraband liquor was involved in some other crime and they were entrusted to the Excise officials by the Magistrate in such crime. The petitioners attempted to stealthily remove some spirit cans. In the course of such attempt, when the officials of the Excise office come to know of the incident, the accused persons allegedly took to their heels. The first accused was arrested. From him the complicity of the petitioner was revealed. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. He apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No. 1154 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that the Investigating Officer should not have acted upon the statement of the apprehended accused about the complicity of the petitioner. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever available at the moment to doubt or suspect the allegations about the complicity of the petitioner. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned B.A.No. 1154 of 2008 3 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm