IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 147 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.796/07 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ RAHUL R.PILLAI, VADAKKEYIL HOUSE, VALLAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.SHIJU ABRAHAM VERGHIS SMT.PREEJA. P.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 147 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused. Now, he faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.326 of the IPC. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that while the de facto complainant, along with his sick son was travelling on a two wheeler, the petitioner stopped his vehicle in front of the scooter and there was an exchange of words with the de facto complainant. Enraged by the conduct of the de facto complainant, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant with hands. Later, after returning to his vehicle he came back with an iron rod and beat the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant suffered injuries, including a fracture. The de facto complainant had, in the B.A. No. 147 OF 2008 -: 2 :- First Information Statement, alleged that some other persons, who had reached the scene, had also assaulted him. But, in the course of investigation, it was revealed that the allegations against such persons are not justified. They have been dropped from the array of accused. The petitioner is the sole accused now remaining on the array of accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Initially allegation was raised against some other persons, who had reached the scene; but now allegations are raised solely against the petitioner by the police. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to any appropriate conditions, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that specific allegations are there against the petitioner in the First Information Statement confirming the present version of the police that the fracture was suffered by the de facto complainant when he was beaten by the petitioner with an iron rod. The statement of the de facto complainant that others, who had reached the scene, B.A. No. 147 OF 2008 -: 3 :- had also pushed and assaulted him have been found to be not supported by materials and that is why the other accused have been dropped and the allegations of unlawful assembly are not pressed. The fact remains that the petitioner is the one who commenced quarrel and also assaulted the de facto complainant with a dangerous weapon resulting in fracture suffered by the de facto complainant. At any rate, there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The learned Public Prosecutor has read over to me the relevant portion in the First Information Statement. 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 jurisdiction under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary and usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the B.A. No. 147 OF 2008 -: 4 :- Investigating Officer or 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