IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8086 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.314/07 OF ERUMAPETTI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: ----------------------------- 1. NISHAD, AGED 26, S/O. PUTHANPURAKKAL BALAN, THANDILAM DESOM, VALLATHANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MUKUNDAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. MANAKKALATH KESAVAN, THANDILAM DESOM, VALLATHANJOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2. S.I. OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.8086 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The 3rd accused has already been arrested and released on bail also. The allegation is that on account of prior animosity, the accused persons, armed with stick and swordS, allegedly attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to 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. Exaggerated allegations are raised falsely with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the petitioners. The inclusion of the offence under Section 308 I.P.C reveals the vexatious intent of the defacto complainant. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No.8086 of 2007 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the nature of injuries suffered which includes a lacerated injury on the scalp. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. I am unable to find any features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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.8086 of 2007 3