IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2008 / 2ND MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 346 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.15/08 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6 ----------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O.Y.THOMAS, CHARUVILA VEEDU, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.PODIYAN, RAJEE BHAVAN, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. 3. JOHNY, S/O.Y.THOMAS, CHARUVILA VEEDU, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. 4. MURUKAN @ SANAL KUMAR, S/O.SOMAN, SUNIL BHAVAN, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. 5. SHAJI, S/O.PODIYAN, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. 6. SHIBU, S/O.PODIYAN, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THACHAKKULAM, PIRAVANTHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 15 OF 2008 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 346 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.452 and 324 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners, who are all named in the F.I.R., is that they, on account of prior animosity consequent to the conduct of the de facto complainant raising objections against illicit sale of liquor by the 2nd accused on the pathway leading to his house, were members of an unlawful assembly of persons who trespassed into the residential building of the de facto complainant after making prior preparations. They assaulted the de facto complainant in prosecution of their common object. The de facto complainant and his son suffered injuries. Those injuries are minor in nature. Sticks B.A. No. 346 OF 2008 -: 2 :- were the weapons allegedly used. The crime was registered on the same day i.e., 4/1/08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. In fact, the boot was on the other leg. The petitioners, who were returning after attending a burial, had to pass along the way in front of the house of the de facto complainant. While they were walking along the pathway, they were allegedly attacked on account of prior animosity. The 1st accused had allegedly suffered injuries. His father has lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police. No action has been taken on such complaint. With vexatious intent the police is bent on arresting the petitioners and keeping them in custody. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. No counter case has been registered. The contents of the very prompt First Information Statement lodged, supports the allegations against the petitioners. At any rate, the petitioners B.A. No. 346 OF 2008 -: 3 :- may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge