IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 985 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 189/06 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ----------------- K.P.MARTIN,AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.KAITHAVALAPPIL PETER,KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KANDAKKADAVU P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KISHOR B. SRIKVIDYASAGAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 985 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether there are three accused persons. The de facto complainant is an Electrical Inspector. He realised that a Resort had installed generator without any requisite authority. The first accused is an electrical contractor. A certificate allegedly issued by the Electrical Inspector was produced to sanction the generating system. The petitioner had allegedly impersonated to be an Electrical Inspector and had issued a certificate. That certificate was produced by the 1st accused before the authorities. Crime was registered. Final report was filed. Further investigation was conducted. It is in the course of the further investigation that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. BA.985/08 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He is not in any way connected with the crime. It is not he who had issued the certificate. False allegations are raised against him, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All available indications clearly suggest that the petitioner, in contumacious collusion with the 1st accused, had facilitated the 1st accused to produce the certificate which the petitioner had issued and which he was not competent to issue. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that there are no satisfactory reasons justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. The prayer for anticipatory bail may be rejected and the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, it is prayed. BA.985/08 : 3 : 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