IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8063 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.102/2007 OF TIRUNELLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. SHIBU S/O.VARKEY, AGED 37, PALLICHAMKUDY HOUSE, MUDIRAMOOLA, POST PAYYAMPALLY, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, 2. BIJU, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 35, PALLICHAMKUDY HOUSE, MUDIRAMOOLA, POST PAYYAMPALLY MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. SAJI, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 36, PALLICHAMKUDY HOUSE, MUDIRAMOOLA, POST PAYYAMPALLY MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. VARKEY @ VARGHESE, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 72, PALLICHAMKUDY HOUSE, MUDIRAMOOLA, POST PAYYAMPALLY, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: ------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUNELLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.8063 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the father-in-law (fourth accused) and brothers-in-law (accused 1 to 3) of the de facto complainant. The alleged incident took place on 28/10/2007. The crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint dated 12/11/2007 filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him with dangerous sticks resulting in injuries including fracture of the skull bone (frontal bone). Crime is registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised by the de facto complainant against the petitioners with ulterior motive. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that subsequent crime has been registered against the B.A.No.8063/07 2 de facto complainant and his relatives for offence punishable inter alia under Section 498A I.P.C. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the complaint in this case has been filed only on 12/11/2007 that cannot militate against the acceptability of the allegations as it can be seen that on the date of the incident itself, to the doctor, it was complained by the de facto complainant that he was assaulted by the accused. The petitioner was referred to the Medical College Hospital and he had undergone treatment there and that is why there is delay in filing a complaint. 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. B.A.No.8063/07 3 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 // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.8063/07 4 B.A.No.8063/07 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007