IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1512 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.76/08 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 & 2 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SABARI, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, SABARI NIVAS, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. 2. BIJU, S/O.AZHAKAPPAN ASARI, ASARIVILAKATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-20. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.GOPU RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1512 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section 456 I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The alleged incident took place on 22.02.08 at about 1 a.m. On account of prior animosity which arose allegedly because the defacto complainant had lodged an earlier complaint before the police about the assault on his son, the petitioners along with others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and allegedly attacked the house of the defacto complainant. The house was damaged. The miscreants were armed with dangerous weapons. The defacto complainant and his family members were allegedly threatened also. The 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 innocent. The defacto complainant has influence with the police. He being a taxi driver and his taxi being engaged by police officials for their trip, making use of such influence which the defacto complainant has, crimes are registered without any justification against the petitioners. The B.A.No.1512 of 2008 2 petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications do clinchingly show the complicity of the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the scene mahazar which bears telltale indications of the alleged attack on the house. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 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/- B.A.No.1512 of 2008 3