IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1515 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.325/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.5/08 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED ----------------- SAJUMON @ BABU, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN AGED 31 YEARS, PADIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE AMBALAVATTOM P.O., PANAMANA-679 501 OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1515 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. He is the only named accused in the F.I.R. 7 others had also allegedly participated in the occurrence. Personal animosity is the alleged motive. Stones and iron rods were used for the attack. There is an allegation that the wife of the 1st accused had illicit relationship with the defacto complainant. On account of this animosity, the car in which the defacto complainant was travelling was stopped on the road and an attack was unleashed on him, it is alleged. The victim had suffered fracture of the upper limb. The alleged incident took place on 03.01.08. Crime is registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation is improbable, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defacto complainant was travelling in the car of a friend of his. It is B.A.No.1515 of 2008 2 unlikely that anyone could have anticipated that he would be coming in that car. The place of incident is neither near the house of the accused nor near the house of the defacto complainant. There is no probability of the road being blocked in such place. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an accident appears to have taken place and the defacto complainant appears to have lodged a claim before the insurer of the car that an accident had taken place and the vehicle had suffered damage. In any view of the matter the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is very evident that no accident had taken place and the damage was suffered by the car and the injury was suffered by the defacto complainant. There is nothing artificial or improbable in the version of the defacto complainant about the circumstances under which he suffered injuries. In any view of the matter, there are absolutely no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.1515 of 2008 3 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. A more detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations is unwarranted at this stage. I am unable to perceive any features available in this case which can 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 petitioner 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 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-