IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1514 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.121 OF 2008 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 9 ----------------------------------------------- 1. JYOTHISH KUMAR N.K., AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, NELLIKUNNATH HOUSE, PATHAMKULAM (POST), VANIYAMKULAM (VIA) OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. RAVEENDRAN K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDHANKUTTY NAIR, AARUPETHI, PARIYARATH HOUSE, 'DO', 'DO'. 3. JYOTHISH KUMAR V.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VAPPALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, 'DO' 'DO' 4. DHANARAJAN.C, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, 'DO' 'DO' 5. MANIKANDAN.K., AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, KANGALATH HOUSE, 'DO' 'DO' 6. PAVIDAS P., AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.PAMBAVASAN, PUTHUVAYIL HOUSE, 'DO' 'DO' 7. CHANDRAN V.K., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AYYAPPAN, VAPPALAMKUNNATH HOUSE, 'DO' 'DO' 8. SUNIL KUMAR.C., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.CHAVATHAKATTIL HOUSE, PAVUKKONAM (POST) VANIYAMKULAM (VIA), OTTAPALAM TALUK. 9. SURESH KUMAR N.K., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHAMI, NELLIKUNATH HOUSE, PATHAMKULAM (POST), VANIYAMKULAM (VIA), OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1514 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 9. Altogether there are 15 accused persons. All the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. On 17.02.08 at about 5.50 p.m on account of animosity which arose from an incident which had taken place a couple of days' earlier at a Thalappoli festival in the locality, accused persons armed with swords and iron rods allegedly attacked the defacto complainant resulting in grievous injuries including fracture of the left radius for the defacto complainant. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are falsely implicated. The alleged motive is too insufficient to justify the alleged overt acts committed by the petitioners. In these circumstances anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed. B.A.No.1514 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. Sufficiency of a motive is too dangerous of a criteria in the adjudication of culpability in criminal cases. Culpable responsibility cannot be assessed on the basis of the sufficiency of motive. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the more unreasonable a person is the less the motive necessary to unleash an attack on the other. In these circumstances arguments advanced on the basis of the sufficiency of motive may not weigh with the Court, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which can 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 petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. B.A.No.1514 of 2008 3 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/-