IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 802 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.28/08 OF KODENCHERRY POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- RAJU, S/O.CHATHANKUTTY, AGED 30 YEARS MANIKKOTH, NOORAMTHODU, KODENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KEALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.802 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. On account of prior animosity, the accused is alleged to have inflicted injury on the victim by a knife. A penetrating stab injury is found on the person of the victim. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The allegation under Section 308 I.P.C has been included with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing the petitioner. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the fact that the penetrating injury was inflicted with the knife is clearly indicated by the circumstance available in the case. There is no reason to assume that the allegations under Section 308 I.P.C are raised with vexatious intent. The petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail now, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.802 of 2008 2 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not satisfied that there are 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 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 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/-