IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1501 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 102/08 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION APPLICANT/4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- HARIPRASAD, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANCHERY DESOM,OLLUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OLLUR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1501 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is arrayed as the 4th accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, who are old students of a Higher Secondary School, had allegedly attempted to disrupt the School Day celebration by exploding explosive substances. Crime was registered. Investigation is in progress. In the F.I.R. the petitioner was not named. In the course of investigation the petitioner's complicity has been ascertained and he has been arrayed as the 4th accused. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. Two other accused had come to this Court with an application for anticipatory bail and this Court as per order dt.15.2.2008 in B.A. 918 of 2008 had dismissed the said application directing the accused persons, who were juveniles, to B.A.No. 1501 of 2008 2 surrender before the J.J. Board and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He has not been named in the F.I.R. Even if the entire allegations were accepted, the students had only burst fire crackers and in any view of the matter they do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. 5. I have already adverted to the relevant facts in the order dt.15.2.2008 in B.A. 918 of 2008. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. I am not hence adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 6. I am of the opinion that there is no reason to take a different view in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. The fact that the petitioner's name is not shown in the F.I.R. is, according to me, not a sufficient reason to invoke the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in B.A.No. 1501 of 2008 3 favour of the petitioner. I am satisfied that there are no 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 agree with the learned Prosecutor, 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 usual 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 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