IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 57 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO. 125/07 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- A.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.KUNHAMBU, KRISHNA NIVAS, PATHIRIYAD AMSOM, KELALLOOR DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 57 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. In the F.I.R. no person is named. A group of 10 identifiable persons are shown as accused in the F.I.R. The crux of the allegations is that a group of persons allegedly attacked the victims - three in number. They have suffered serious injuries. Allegations are raised for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Political animosity is said to be the alleged motive. The first accused was subsequently arrested. His interrogation has revealed the complicity of the petitioner. Report has been filed before Court to array accused 1 and 2 as accused persons. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that political animosity has prompted the victims as also the police to B.A.No. 57 of 2008 2 make vexatious allegations against the petitioner, who owes allegiance to BJP. The victims owe allegiance to the CPM, which shares the power in the State. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He points out that all the available indications point convincingly to the complicity of the petitioner. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior B.A.No. 57 of 2008 3 notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm