Order This is a petition for bail. The accused who is one the six accused in the case is involved in an offence under section 4(1)(B) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. As per the prosecution, he is responsible for possessing 1,000 litres of illicit distilled arrack and 3,000 litres of wash. The occurrence was detected on 16.3.1988. The case of the petitioner is that he was apprehended, that he has been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity, that he is prepared to appear before the police for due interrogation; that he is a man of means and capable of furnishing sureties. 2. The case of the learned Public Prosecutor is that though theoffence was detected on 16.3.1988, the accused could not be arrested till now ashe has been successfully evading arrest. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was very much available for arrest that, in fact on 24.3.1988 he has moved the sessions Court for bail, which fact was known to the prosecution. 4. I am not prepared to accept the version of the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner is evading arrest. It appears that the police is not interested in arresting the person. In fact under section 41, Criminal Procedure Code, arrest need not be resorted to automatically in all cases. Police officer has got a large discretion to arrest or not to arrest a person. It appears that the Police Officer has in this case exercised his discretion in favour of the accused, and he has forfeited there by his right to arrest thereafter without warrant, and the accused can be secured only through a warrant issued by the court. Under these circumstances this petition for anticipatory bail is objectless and is dismissed. B.S. ----- Petition dismissed.