IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2137 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRLMC.444/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO.152/2008 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. KANNAN @ VINOD, S/O.GOPALAN, PALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR P.G., S/O.GOPALAN, PALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.VELAPPAYA, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2137 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are only two accused persons. On account of prior animosity, they are alleged to have attacked the de facto complainant on 23/2/2008. Complaint was filed only on 28/2/2008. Both the petitioners, armed with dangerous weapons, had allegedly attacked the de facto complainant. Loosening of tooth is noted in the prompt wound certificate. That tooth had to be taken away subsequently. F.I.R has been lodged on 28/2/2008. Stone is the weapon allegedly used. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The learned counsel contends that no grievous hurt has resulted on account of the alleged attack of the petitioners. A lenient view may be taken and the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All the available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. A grievous hurt is clearly indicated also, it is submitted. There is no merit in the contention that there is no B.A.No.2137/08 2 grievous hurt suffered by the petitioner. 4. I have been taken through the wound certificate as it was initially prepared and the later certificate issued after extraction of the loosened tooth. 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 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2137/08 3 B.A.No.2137/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007