IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2234 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 202/07 OF PALLIKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : A1 AND A3 -------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 40 (A1) S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, LEKHA BHAVAN AYANIKATTUKONAM, MADAVOOR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BABU, AGED 48, (A3) KRISHNAPILLAI, GOKULAM, AYANIKATTUKONAM MADAVOOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLIKKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2234 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 3. Altogether there are three accused persons. All the accused persons are named in the F.I.R. registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 324 and 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Allegations are also raised under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners and the defacto complainant were friends. They all owed allegiance to RSS. Being a Christmas day, (25.12.2007) there was a suggestion on the part of the defacto complainant that Christmas could be celebrated. That idea was not tolerated by the accused persons. The defacto complainant ignored their objections and proceeded with the preparations for the celebration. The accused persons are alleged to have trespassed into the property, where the defacto complainant and others were making B.A.No. 2234 of 2008 2 arrangements for the celebration of Christmas. Sword was the weapon used. Injury on the parietal bone is seen suffered by the victim. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. At any rate, a period of about four months having already elapsed from the date of the crime, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. They may not be subjected to the trauma of arrest and incarceration, submits the learned counsel. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the genesis of the crime as also the injury suffered by the victim may be taken note of. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners 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 ordinary course. B.A.No. 2234 of 2008 3 6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm