IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1099 of 2008(G) ------------------------------ CRIME NO.181 OF 2006 OF FORTKOCHI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER : ----------------- GEORGE VARGHESE @ AJI VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 28 YEARS, CC IX/143, MANTHRA, VELI, FORTKOCHI, KOCHI-1. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORTKOCHI POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1099 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the sole accused. He is named in the F.I.R. He faces allegations for the offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. On account of prior personal animosity between the family of the petitioner and the defacto complainant consequent to some property dispute, the petitioner, who is employed abroad who had come down to his native place, had allegedly inflicted injuries with a sword on the victims. A prompt F.I statement has been lodged. The victims were taken to the hospital shortly after occurrence and allegations are promptly raised before the doctor also. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. No incident as alleged had at all taken place. False allegations are being raised. The petitioner had no reason to go to the scene of the crime at all. The petitioner's father had succeeded in the litigation with the defacto B.A.No.1099 of 2008 2 complainant. In these circumstances, the allegations are being raised solely because of the animosity and with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has read over to me the nature of injuries described in the wound certificate. The alleged cause narrated to the doctor as well as the F.I statement has been read over to me. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that taking all the relevant circumstances into account, there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual and normal course. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At this early stage of investigation, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions about the acceptability of the allegations or credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am not satisfied that there are any features in this case which can justify or warrant 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 B.A.No.1099 of 2008 3 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/-