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. 823 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.353/07 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED (A4) ----------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SAFEEL, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT "RUBY". THOKKILANGADI, KOOTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGRESH SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE 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.823 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 4th accused. Altogether there are 5 accused persons. The crime is being investigated under Sections 324, 326 and 308 I.P.C. Altogether there are 5 accused persons. Only accused 1 and 2 are named in the F.I.R. The defacto complainant had not made specific allegations about the involvement of the other 3 accused persons. The incident had taken place on 26.12.07. The incident in this case is a sequel to the clashes and conflicts between persons owing allegiance to two political parties – C.P.M and B.J.P. Iron rod, knife, etc. were used for the commission of the offence and grievous hurt has been suffered by the victim. The victim was allegedly traveling in an autorickshaw driven by another person on the date of the occurrence. Accused persons actuated by political animosity had intercepted the vehicle and had unleashed a brutal attack against the victim. The victim had suffered grievous injuries. 2. Investigation commenced. In the course of investigation, the autorickshaw driver was questioned. From his statement, the investigating officer was allegedly able to collect B.A.No.823 of 2008 2 the names of all the 5 miscreants. The diary recorded on 27.12.07 itself shows the complicity of all the 5 accused persons now arrayed. I note with dissatisfaction that the report arraying all the 5 accused was submitted only long later on 08.01.08. Be that as it may, the case diary clearly shows that the culpable involvement of the co-accused including the petitioner who is not named in the F.I.R was ascertained at the very early stage of investigation itself. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R. The petitioner does not know the defacto complainant. The petitioner is a person who is a Muslim by religion. It is improbable and artificial to allege that he owes allegiance to the B.J.P and was a member of the unlawful assembly along with others to attack the defacto complainant on the basis of the political interests which the miscreants entertained towards the defacto complainant. In any case, directions may be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C to save the petitioner from the trauma of arrest and detention. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has brought to my B.A.No.823 of 2008 3 attention the wound certificate which shows that fracture was suffered by the victim. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that absolutely no circumstances exist justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. The case diary has been placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am in agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor that there no features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 6. 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/-