IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1684 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.121/08 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ DEEPAK E.KURIEN, S/O.MATHEW KURIEN, KANIAMPARAMPIL, MANGANAM KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE VADAVATHOOR POST, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1684 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. He is alleged to have trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant with a sickle and indulged in acts of intimidation, threat and mischief. He has caused destruction to two pieces of furniture resulting in loss of Rs.200/- to the defacto complainant. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the defacto complainant and the petitioner are friends. There are certain disputes between them. It is in these circumstances that the crime has been registered and vexatious action initiated against the petitioner. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No. 1684 of 2008 2 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Entirely different consideration would weigh with the learned Magistrate while considering the application for regular bail. I need only mention that at the moment and with the available 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. 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