IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2007 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 6418 of 2007() --------------------------------- CRIME NO.381/07 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ---------------- RAVI, KOZHIKUNNEL PARAMBIL, PALAMBRA, KANJIRAPPALLY, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.6418 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether there are 2 accused persons. There was some wordy altercation between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant a little prior to the incident alleged in this case. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 1 and 2 came to the scene of occurrence armed with dangerous weapons. The 1st accused was armed with an axe and the petitioner was armed with a knife. They allegedly attacked the victim. The victim suffered injuries at the hands of the 1st accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has an entirely different version to advance. According to him, hearing some quarrel outside, his wife had gone out. Hearing her cries he had gone out to save his wife. He had absolutely no involvement in the incident. He did not share any common intention with the 1st accused. Even allegedly he had not inflicted any specific injury on the defacto complainant. In theses circumstances, a lenient view may be taken and the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The question at this stage is not about the specific overt acts B.A.No.6418 of 2007 2 committed. The allegation is of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 r/w 34 I.P.C. Sharing of the common intention is absolutely evident from the allegations made. At this stage while considering an application for anticipatory bail, there is absolutely nothing to come to a conclusion that the petitioner did not share the common intention along with the 1st accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. I have perused the records. F.I.R and the wound certificate have been seen by me. Serious allegations are seen raised against the petitioners. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before 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/- B.A.No.6418 of 2007 3