IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1378 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 809/07 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION CRLMP.246/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. ANIL K.JOSE, KAKKADU OLICKAL HOUSE, KOTTOOR, KAVIYOOR. 2. MONCY JOSEPH, CHAMPAKASSERIL HOUSE, KOTTOOR, KAVIYOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1378 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are two accused persons. There is one injured person. The alleged incident took place at 9.30 p.m. on 24.12.2008 in the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant. Sword stick is the weapon allegedly used. Damage has been caused to the autorikshaw parked in the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. False and vexatious allegations are raised against them. Inclusion of allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. is not justified at all, submits the counsel. The defacto complainant is a police official and that is the reason why the police have obliged the defacto complainant by including such an B.A.No. 1378 of 2008 2 allegation. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations are serious. The petitioners are guilty of culpable conduct. The learned Prosecutor has read over to me the nature of the injuries described in the wound certificate. He submits that the scene mahazar shows the nature of damages suffered by the properties as also the injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. The petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail now. He submits that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. This I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned B.A.No. 1378 of 2008 3 Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. 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