IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 736 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.14/08 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------- RAGHUNATHAN, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MALIKAYIL VEEDU, ALLADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, URAKAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CR.NO.14 OF 2008 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION), THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 736 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. The petitioner and two others are named in the F.I.R. The alleged incident took place on 9/1/08. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons entered a bar and when they demanded a boiled egg which could not be made available by the employees of the bar, they allegedly unleashed an attack and indulged in the acts of violence and destruction. Investigation is in progress. Two of the four accused have already been arrested. The petitioner and another are yet to be arrested. Investigation is not complete. Final report has not been filed. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the B.A. No. 736 OF 2008 -: 2 :- petitioner is absolutely innocent. He is only an autorikshaw driver. Those who came to the bar in his autorikshaw were involved in some incident at the bar. The petitioner has not indulged in any specific overt acts. Except the alleged showering of abuses, no other allegations specifically have been raised against the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the totality of inputs available does clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner in a crime like the instant one. It cannot at this stage be attempted to identify the specific overt acts. At any rate, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal course. I find no features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the B.A. No. 736 OF 2008 -: 3 :- extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge