IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 390 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.899/07 OF MANJERI POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. SHIHABUDHEEN, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 22 YEARS, KOTTAKKUTHU KIZHAKKATHIL (H), MUKKUTH MUKKAM, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY. 2. URAIS, S/O.SULAIMAN, AGED 21 YEARS, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.390 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 353 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that while the revenue officials were examining the vehicle, they found a mini lorry of which accused No.2 was the driver involved in illicit transportation of sand. The 2nd accused, the driver contacted the 1st accused and he came to the scene on a motor cycle. The two accused persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted and deterred the defacto complainant from discharging his official duties. Using force, the vehicle was taken away from the custody of the officials, it is alleged. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Totally false and vexatious allegations are raised against the petitioners. The revenue officials were not acting fairly or honestly. They had oblique motives and dishonest purposes. As the petitioners did B.A.No.390 of 2008 2 not yield to such illegal demands of the officials, totally false and vexatious allegations are being raised against them, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications do point convincingly to the complicity of the petitioners. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I have perused the F.I.R. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not satisfied that there are any features in this case which can justify or warrant 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 Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. B.A.No.390 of 2008 3 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-