IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 419 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 409/07 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- VASANTHALAL, S/O.VIVEKANANDAN, VISHNU BHAVAN, PUNCHAKONAM, ALAYAMON VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHAL POLICE STATION, ANCHAL. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 419 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 326 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 2.12.2007. The F.I. statement has been lodged on 3.12.2007. 2. On 2.12.2007, there was a quarrel and disputes between persons belonging to INTUC and CITU unions. One member of the INTUC had allegedly suffered injuries. A crime has been registered in respect of that incident as Crime No.408 of 2007. 3. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that when such dispute was going between the INTUC and CITU personnel, the petitioner along with some others came in an autorikshaw. He stopped the autorikshaw at the scene and he intervened in the dispute. He took out a weapon from the autorikshaw and unleashed an attack on the victim. The victim suffered grievous injuries. Though it is alleged that others had B.A.No. 419 of 2008 2 also come to the scene of occurrence in that autorikshaw, no specific allegations are seen raised against any one of them. Specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner in the F.I. statement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has not involved in the dispute between the INTUC and CITU. The injured in Crime 408 of 2007 happens to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner and only in an attempt to coerce submission of the injured in that case the petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused in this case. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, subject to any appropriate conditions, prays the learned counsel. 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the case advanced by the accused is totally unacceptable and improbable. It is idle to assume that the victim, who has not raised any allegations against the defacto complainant/injured in Crime 408 of 2007 or against the other INTUC personnel who were actually involved in the dispute and has chosen to raise allegations only against the petitioner while not raising allegations against the persons who B.A.No. 419 of 2008 3 came along with the petitioner in the autorikshaw to the scene of the crime. The learned Prosecutor points out that specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner and the totality of circumstances must convey to this court convincingly the culpable involvement of the petitioner in the crime. At this stage and with the available inputs, there is nothing to assume that the allegations are false or are raised with vexatious intent. The petitioner facing the allegation under section 326 I.P.C. must be left to seek bail in the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. He must then seek regular bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 6. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am unable to find any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned B.A.No. 419 of 2008 4 Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm