IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7905 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.432/07 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- JINEESH M., S/O GANGADHARAN NAMBIAR, NARACHANGAL HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AREACODE POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.7905 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. He along with co-accused faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 332 and 324 r/w 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that in the premises of the 2nd accused, the 1st accused was found in a vehicle carrying sand. The revenue officials intercepted the vehicle. The 1st accused allegedly got out and ran away. While the officials were completing the paper work relating to the seizure, the 1st and 2nd accused led a group of about 40 persons, who came to the scene, and had intercepted the work of the officials and assaulted them. The defacto complainant was hit with a stone and he allegedly suffered injuries. Those injuries were inflicted by the 2nd accused. The specific overt act resulting in injury is attributed only to the 2nd accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even going by the version of the B.A.No.7905 of 2007 2 police, the petitioner had not indulged in any overt culpable acts against the defacto complainant causing injuries to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that while it is true that there is no specific allegation of overt acts by the petitioner resulting in injuries, the police rely on the fact that accused 1 and 2 had led the group of miscreants and that it was in furtherance of the common object of all, that the 2nd accused attacked the defacto complainant. At any rate, there are no circumstances justifying of warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the normal and usual course. I find no features in this case that can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. B.A.No.7905 of 2007 3 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-