IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2007 / 11TH ASHADHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 3963 of 2007(R) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.484/07 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION PETITIONER : 4TH ACCUSED ----------------- REGI,AGED 33,S/O.RAJAPPAN, VAYALANTHARA HOUSE,KARUKUTTY,MAMBRA,ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY XAVIER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------- S.I OF POLICE,ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ANGAMALY,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.3963 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007 ORDER Petitioner is the 4th accused. Altogether there are 4 accused persons. They face allegations under Section 392 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 10.06.2007 at 10 p.m. F.I.R was registered at 11 p.m. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons stopped a lorry, in which the defacto complainant and two others were travelling. They damaged parts of the lorry. They forcibly took away an amount of Rs.8,500/-, which was available in the lorry. F.I.R was registered immediately thereafter. None of the accused is named in the F.I.R. Investigation is in progress. In the course of investigation, the complicity of 4 accused persons has been ascertained. Accused 1 to 3 have been arrested. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. He apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and that he has been arrayed as an accused without any justification. Even going by the version of the defacto complainant, only 3 accused persons had indulged in the overt act. No specific overt act has been alleged against the 4th person, ie. the petitioner herein. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. B.A.No.3963 of 2007 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the crime is serious and grievous. Strict view is liable to be taken. The entire booty has not been recovered yet. It would be idle at this stage to attempt in a hairsplitting manner, the precise overt act of each of the accused. It is transparently evident that all the 4 persons had indulged in the objectionable conduct in furtherance of their common intention. In these circumstances, an undue emphasis and importance may not be given to the alleged circumstance that no specific overt act is ascribed by the witnesses to the 4th person who was along with 3 others, who indulged in the culpable overt acts - of stopping a vehicle and robbing its passengers. 4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is not a fit case to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and regular course of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must then apply for regular bail. I find no reason to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage of the proceedings. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the B.A.No.3963 of 2007 3 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-