IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1787 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.73 OF 2008 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. SREEJITH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SREEKUMAR, POADIPPURA VEEDU, ARCHANA NAGAR, PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHANKU, S/O.YAYAN, PANAYIL VEEDU, NEERAZHI LANE, PRASANTH NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1787 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3. Altogether there are 4 accused persons. The 1st accused has already been arrested and released on bail. The alleged incident took place on 23.01.08. The victim has suffered 2 fractures - fracture of nasal bone and the metacarpal bone. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. There is a connected crime 72 of 2008 registered. As a counter blast to that, false allegations have been raised against the petitioners in this crime. The petitioners may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available inputs point to the complicity of the petitioners. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the B.A.No.1787 of 2008 2 extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features available 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 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.1787 of 2008 3