IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1558 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.351 OF KATTOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. RANJITH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, THEKKETHALAKKAL HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR. 2. VIBIN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, THEPPURATH HOUSE, EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR. 3. SAJEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, KEZHAKKEVALAPPIL HOUSE, POTHANI, EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1558 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 4,2 and 9 respectively. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 308 read with 149 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons came in a group in vehicles. They enquired of one Paramsivan and they thereafter unleashed an attack on the victims. Four persons suffered injuries. Iron rods were the weapons allegedly used. Allegations are raised for offences punishable inter alia under Section 308 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. An earlier application filed by petitioners 1 and 2 was dismissed as per order dated 11/1/2008 in B.A.No.113/08. I have adverted to facts in detail in the said order. It is not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. Some of the co-accused have already been granted regular bail. Petitioners 1 and 2 have come to this court now without revealing any information about the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by them. B.A.No.1558/08 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that the application in so far as petitioners 1 and 2 are concerned, must meet with the inevitable fate as they have not chosen to reveal the fact that they had come earlier to this court and there are no change of circumstances to show. So far as the third petitioner is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that for identical reasons as shown in the earlier order dated 11/1/2008, the said petition may also be dismissed. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The conduct of petitioners 1 and 2 of not revealing to this court the fact that they had earlier moved an application for anticipatory bail, does deserve to be frowned upon. At any rate, they have not shown any change of circumstances to justify a different fresh consideration of their renewed application for anticipatory bail. So far as the third petitioner is concerned, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail does not deserve to be granted in his favour for the same reasons which are mentioned in the earlier order dated 11/1/2008 in B.A.No.113/08. B.A.No.1558/08 3 5. 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 petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 6. 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.1558/08 4 B.A.No.1558/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007