IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 626 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 361/07 OF SHORNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O MUHAMMED MASTER, AGED 41 YEARS, ALIKKAL KURAVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ K., S/O MOIDEEN, AGED 36 YEARS, KOLLARUTHODI HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. IBRAHIM, S/O HAMSA, AGED 28 YEARS, ORAVANGAL VEEDU, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 4. K.V.THAJUDEEN, S/O KUNHIMOIDEEN, AGED 41 YEARS, KADAKASSERIVALAPPIL, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 5. A.K.DEVADAS, S/O KESAVAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, AKAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHOORAKKODE, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 6. P.ABDUL SALAM,S/O KUNHAMINA, AGED 38 YEARS, PUDUEETTIL, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM. 7. A.ABDUL ALI, S/O AHAMMAD, AGED 36 YEARS, KONGASSERI HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM. 8. S.MANIKANTAN, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 41 YEARS, SANTHIPURATH HOUSE, KURUVATTOOR, VALLAPUZHA, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SHORNUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 626 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Second application for anticipatory bail. Initially allegations were raised against the petitioners under sections 326 and 308 IPC. It is at that stage that the earlier application for anticipatory bail was filed and the same was dismissed as per order dated 12.11.07 in BA.6705/07. That petition was dismissed as not pressed. The petitioners have again come to this Court with this application for anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequently a significant development has taken place in the case. The allegation under section 308 IPC has been dropped by the investigator after making progress in the investigation. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned BA.626/08 : 2 : Public Prosecutor submits that the non-bailable offence punishable under section 326 IPC is still alleged against the petitioners and in these circumstances, there is no justification for the prayer for invocation of the jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that allegation is that the police party, which had gone to the locality on coming to know about a law and order situation, was attacked with weapons by the accused persons. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in any view of the matter, there is no necessity to invoke the jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. 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 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 BA.626/08 : 3 : Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks