IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5829 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.1312/2008 CRIME NO.94/08 OF NORTH ARAVUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PRAMOD P.K., S/O.KALADHARAN, AGED 22 YEARS, PEECHANAT HOUSE, EZHIKKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.94 OF 2008 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5829 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2008 O R D E R This is the second application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner, along with other accused, formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the de facto complainant and caused grievous hurt and also attempted to commit murder. Petitioner is the 3rd accused in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aged only 22 years and actually the incident occurred between de facto complainant and first accused. There was a quarrel between them and an assault also. But, all the persons, who were present in the premises were implicated as accused, and that is how petitioner also was made an accused in the crime. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Magistrate Court and a direction may be issued to consider the bail application as early as possible, it is submitted. BA.5829/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that charge sheet has already been laid. Petitioner was not available for arrest and investigation. There was a direction to appear before the Magistrate Court, but he did not comply with the direction. As per order dated 4.3.2008 in B.A.No.1312/2008, this Court observed as follows: “Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive 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 petitioners. This I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners 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. On going through the above order and on hearing both sides, I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. As held above, there are no special features to justify grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Magistrate Court and apply for bail and a direction was also given to learned Magistrate to pass orders on merits expeditiously. The petitioner has not availed of this benefit. Even after expiry of seven months of passing of the above order, instead of surrendering, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail. I am least inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C in this case. BA.5829/08 3 The petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.