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. 8045 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.72/07 OF CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- YOGESH, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, VALIYAVEEDU, THIRUVALATHUR POST, KALLINGAL, PALAKKAD TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY 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, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.8045 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 9th accused. Altogether there are 9 accused persons. The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they had planned an attack on the victim. He was chased by the miscreants. He ran to safety and attempted to take shelter in a nearby spare parts shop. He was brutally assaulted there with dangerous weapons including swords, knives and choppers. As many as 39 injuries were inflicted on him. The miscreants were not named in the F.I.R. Investigation commenced. Investigation revealed that the attack on the victim was part of inter gang rivalry between 2 gangs of goondas. The petitioner is one effectively controlling the gang which mounted the attack on the victim, who himself belongs to another group. The victim was responsible for an earlier attack on the petitioner herein and the petitioner hence allegedly entertained a grouse against the victim. It is to vindicate his grievance and revenge that the attack was allegedly planned by the petitioner. The alleged incident B.A.No.8045 of 2007 2 took place on 3.4.07. The petitioner was not initially arrayed as accused. On interrogation of some of the accused who have been arrested, the role of the petitioner had become clear. The petitioner has hence been arrayed as the 9th accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the incident in question. The victim has such antecedents that several persons can be seen to entertain animus against him. No specific allegations are raised that the petitioner is responsible and had taken part in the attack on the victim. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. He shall co- operate with the investigators. Subject to any appropriate conditions, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge by a detailed order, copy of which is produced along with the petition. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs including the confession statement of the co-accused convincingly point to the complicity of the petitioner, B.A.No.8045 of 2007 3 it is true that the petitioner was not identified at the scene of the crime. But indications are there to suggest that the petitioner was also available at and near the scene of the crime to mastermind the operation. Satisfactory and convincing indications are available against the petitioner. The petitioner deserves to be interrogated throughly. At this stage of the investigation, there is absolutely no merit or justification in the prayer to arm the petitioner with an order of anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have perused the case diary. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case that can persuade this Court to invoke 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. 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 B.A.No.8045 of 2007 4 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/-