IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1186 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 39/08 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------------- SREE RENKAN, S/O. APPU, AGED 34 YEARS, HARIJAN COLONY, CHOWARA, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.RAJESH R.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1186 OF 2008 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. The petitioner and nine others are shown as accused in a crime registered under sections 452 and 324 IPC. The de facto complainant is a driver by profession. When he was driving his vehicle, it allegedly hit against the pet dog of the petitioner. There was exchange of words etc. The de facto complainant proceeded towards his house. While he was about to reach his house, the petitioner, along with other miscreants, allegedly, chased him in an autorikshaw. He was attacked. He ran to his house for safety. The miscreants, allegedly, followed him and attacked him inside the house. He has suffered injuries. The alleged incident took place on 28.1.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested. He apprehends BA.1186/08 : 2 : imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. There was only an instantaneous reaction consequent to the dispute regarding the negligence and the resultant injury caused to the pet dog of the petitioner. In these circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. It is not a case of instantaneous reaction. The miscreants followed the de facto complainant in a vehicle and attacked him. At any rate, it is for the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. BA.1186/08 : 3 : 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is for the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 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) aks