IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1391 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.38/08 OF KODANADU POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SAJEEV, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, ANJIPPILLY HOUSE, KOODALAPPADU, KOOVAPPADY P.O. 2. JYOTHISH, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, THANDANGATHIL HOUSE, KOODALAPPADU, KOOVAPPADY P.O. 3. MANOJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN, KANICHATTUKUDY HOUSE, KOODALAPPADU, KOOVAPPADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.N.C.MOHANAN SMT.REKHA C.NAIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODANADU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1391 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3. Altogether there are 18 accused persons - three named and fifteen others. The petitioners are the three accused persons named in the F.I.R. The incident took place at 7.30 a.m on 09/02/2008. The miscreants had allegedly trespassed into a tea shop run by the victim and his brother. Both the de facto complainant and his brother had suffered injuries. Personal animosity is the alleged motive. Crime is being investigated for offences punishable inter alia under Sections 326 and 452 read with 149 I.P.C. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in their favour. The petitioners are in noway responsible for the offence. Because of prior animosity, false allegations have been raised against them, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available indications clearly point to the culpability of the petitioners. There is no reason at this stage to assume that the allegations are incorrect, false or B.A.No.1391/08 2 raised vexatiously. In any view of the matter, there are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1391/08 3 B.A.No.1391/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007