IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 391 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.2317/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.713/07 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI MATHAI, AGED 27, S/O. KUTTAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KOZHIMALA P.O., VALLAMKULAM EAST, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. JOSHY T.J., AGED 23 YEARS, MANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTUPUZHA, ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. VENU J., AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. M.N.VASU, UZHATHIL HOUSE, ERAVIPEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON SMT.LOVELY SAMSON RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA 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 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.391 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3. Altogether there are 3 accused persons. The alleged incident took place on 11.11.07. F.I.R is registered on 12.11.07. All the petitioners are named as accused in the F.I.R. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that the petitioners had unleashed an attack against the son of the defacto complainant armed with knife and an incised injury was caused on the abdomen above the umbilicus. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are really the victims of aggression. They have been brought on the array of accused unnecessarily with vexatious intent. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and incarceration. The allegation under Section 308 I.P.C has been included with the sole intention of harassing the petitioners and to ensure that they remain in custody for as long a B.A.No.391 of 2008 2 period as possible. In these circumstances, subject to any appropriate conditions, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications point to the culpability of the petitioners. Though the defacto complainant has not narrated any specific prior motive, the fact remains that the victim has suffered at the hands of the petitioners. Considering the nature of weapons allegedly used as also the nature of the injury revealed from the wound certificate, there is nothing to assume that the allegations under Section 308 I.P.C has been raised without any justification. This petition for anticipatory bail may be rejected and the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a B.A.No.391 of 2008 3 fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. I take note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the weapon of offence has not been recovered yet. 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/-