IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2072 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.202/2008 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ K.J. GEORGE, S/O.K.V.JOHN, KUMPLOTICKAL HOUSE, KUTTAPUZHA VILLAGE,THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.202/08 THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2072 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. The incident took place on 7/3/2008. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner armed with dangerous weapon trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked the de facto complainant causing serious injuries to him. F.I.R has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against him. In fact, the petitioner is only a victim of aggression. The de facto complainant was allegedly guilty of teasing the wife of the petitioner. To question the conduct of the de facto complainant, the petitioner and his wife had allegedly gone to the house of the de facto complainant. There the petitioner and his wife were allegedly attacked. That is the real incident. In respect of that incident, a private complaint was filed later and the said complaint was referred to B.A.No.2072/08 2 the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime has been registered. Investigation into both crimes are in progress. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these circumstances, submits that the petitioner was the victim of aggression. He had no contumacious intent. He does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioner is a Government servant. He shall comply with all directions to be issued by this court. A lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the counter case is the result of a belated thought and the same was registered long after the date of the occurrence. The wife of the petitioner has been questioned and she does not support the version offered by the petitioner that he and his wife were victims of the aggression. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that in any view of the matter it can be seen that the victim/de facto complainant in this crime had suffered serious injuries at the hands of the petitioner herein. In no way can it now be assumed that the petitioner is the victim of the aggression and not the aggressor. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory B.A.No.2072/08 3 bail and may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify 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 petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2072/08 4 B.A.No.2072/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007