IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 71 of 2008() --------------------------- MC.2405/2007 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM CRIME NO.462/07 OF VALIATHURA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- VINCENT @ AJI, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. LEON, LEON HOUSE, TC 80/1561, BALA NAGAR, VETTUKADU TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALIATHURA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 151 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.Nos.71 and 151 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 ORDER These applications are for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused in 2 crimes which are in the nature of a case and a counter case, both registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. 2. An incident did admittedly take place in the residential building of the petitioners in B.A.151 of 2008. Rival versions are advanced about the manner in which the said incident took place. The fact remains that at the end of the incident, 5 persons, 4 of them-the petitioners in B.A.151 of 2008 and the 5th-the petitioner in B.A.71 of 2008 had suffered serious incised injuries. They have rival versions to advance. The petitioner in B.A.71 of 2008 alleges that he went to the house of the petitioners in B.A.151 of 2008 to collect money which he had advanced to them. He was allegedly invited to go over there and when he went there, he was allegedly attacked. 3. The petitioners in B.A.151 of 2008 have an entirely different story to advance. According to them, the petitioner in B.A.71 of 2008 is a notorious individual of the locality. He has B.A.Nos.71 and 151 of 2008 2 been wanting the petitioners to give the 4th petitioner in marriage to him. She is herself an estranged wife residing separately from her husband along with the other petitioners - her parents and brother. They refused and then he attacked them. At the end of the incident, all the 5 petitioners have suffered serious injuries as can be ascertained from the wound certificates which are available in the case diaries in both the cases. 4. Both assert that they were the victims of aggression and the other petitioner/petitioners were the aggressors. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application for anticipatory bail in both the cases. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that It is for the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. No circumstances whatsoever appear to be available at this stage to justify the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in either petition. In these circumstances, applications for anticipatory bail may be rejected and the petitioners may be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. B.A.Nos.71 and 151 of 2008 3 6. The case diaries have been placed before me. I have perused the same. At the present stage, it would be idle for this Court to come to a conclusion that either of the 2 sets of accused have the right of private defence and were the victims of aggression. The nature of injuries suggest that there was a free fight at the scene of the crime and I am satisfied that neither of them can at this stage be held to be entitled to the right of private defence as to jump to the conclusion that they were not aggressors and were the victims of aggression. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that in neither case there are circumstances which justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. While the contention that the petitioner in B.A.71 of 2008 had gone with a request to marry the 4th petitioner in B.A.No.151 of 2008 does not sound reasonable with the available inputs now, the theory that all the 4 petitioners - parents and siblings were waiting to attack the petitioner in B.A.71 of 2008 does not also appear to be justified at this stage. Indications suggest a free fight. 7. These applications are, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners in both the cases surrender before the Investigating Officer or the B.A.Nos.71 and 151 of 2008 4 learned Magistrate and apply 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/-