IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 257 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.15/08 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS ---------------------------- 1. MANOJ, SREEJA SADANAM, ONAMTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJESH M.R., MAYILADUMPARAYIL, ONAMTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. (THROUGH THE S.I OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR) BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.P.G.THAMPI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.257 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. The defacto complainant, a respectable advocate having about 33 years of standing at the Bar, who was travelling in his car, was allegedly attacked by a group of miscreants who were travelling in a jeep in front. That jeep attempted to come in the reverse direction. To facilitate that the miscreants wanted the defacto complainant to remove his vehicle. He could not do the same. They showered abuses. That was questioned. Then the defacto complainant was attacked. His son who tried to save him was also attacked. The miscreants had with them handy a curious weapon - stones covered in towel, which was used by them to attack the victim. The victim was saved only by the timely intervention of his son. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. B.A.No.257 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The petitioners do not dispute that an incident had taken place at the scene of the crime. But according to them, the incident did not take place in the manner alleged and at any rate the offence under Section 308 I.P.C is not attracted at all. 3. The learned Director General of Prosecution opposes the application. The learned Director General of Prosecution submits that the antecedents of the petitioners have to be checked. The fact that they were having such a weapon available with thenm handy clearly indicates that the matter requires detailed and explicative probe. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Director General of Prosecution. I am satisfied, that this, at any rate, is not a fit case where the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 can or ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. B.A.No.257 of 2008 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners apprehend that if they surrender before the local court, they may not be able to secure legal assistance. For that reason, I am not satisfied that the petitioners deserve to be granted anticipatory bail. The petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. Their application for transfer if any shall be considered later. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the 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/-