IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 18TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 553 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.30/08 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 4 ------------------------------------------ 1. SUDHEESH KUMAR, S/O. THANKA NADAR, PP VII/425, MACHINGAVILAKOM VEEDU, KOTTAVILA, KARUMANOOR DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. (A2) 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. THANKA NADAR, PP VII/425, MACHINGAVILAKOM VEEDU, KOTTAVILA, KARUMANOOR DESOM, PARASSALA VILLAGE. (A4) BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.553 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2008 ORDER Petitioners are accused 2 and 3. Originally there were 4 accused. The original 3rd accused was deleted from the array of accused later and the original 4th accused is now arrayed as the 3rd accused. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 153 A I.P.C. The petitioners belong to Christian community. When a religious procession of Hindus was going along a public road, they allegedly caused disturbance to the said procession by stating that a Hindu religious procession need not pass through an area inhabited by the Christians. F.I.R has been registered on these allegations on the basis of a complaint of a temple functionary. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. They apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. The original 3rd accused was really a Hindu and that is why he has been deleted from the array of accused, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. B.A.No.553 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no features whatsoever available in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is an eminently fit case where the petitioners ought to be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs.. The case diary has been placed before me. The F.I statement has been read over. I shall not embark on a detailed discussions about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not satisfied that there are any features in this case which can justify or warrant 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. 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 B.A.No.553 of 2008 3 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/-