IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2105 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 211/07 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED: ----------------------------- SHINU, AGED 24, PLAYARATHALA VEEDU, MINNAMCODE, PEYAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAPILSALA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2105 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first accused. Altogether there are three accused persons arrayed as accused now. In the F.I. Statement all the three accused are named. Of course there is an allegation that there were two identifiable persons also along with the three accused persons. But in the course of investigation that aspect of the case has been found to be not correct. Now only three accused persons are there. The allegations raised include the allegation under the Arms Act. The accused persons, armed with dangerous weapons, allegedly attacked the defacto complainant, a person aged 20 years. Motive for that attack was prior animosity. The incident took place on 27.12.2007. Iron pipes and sword are the weapons used. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and that at any rate the petitioner does not B.A.No. 2105 of 2008 2 deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He is alleged to have wielded an iron pipe, a dangerous arm. Only one injury is seen suffered by the victim. The learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances to warrant a conclusion that the allegations are not true or are made vexatiously. In any view of the matter, the learned Prosecutor submits that the petitioner does not deserve the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find 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 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 usual course. B.A.No. 2105 of 2008 3 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