IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1282 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 113/08 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/A1 TO A3 ------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN, KOLADATHU PADEETTATHIL, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM. 2. BIJESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, OTTATHENGIL KIZHAKKETHIL, CHIRAKKADAVOM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. 3. ANU, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATHAN, KUTTIKKATTU VAYALIL, CHIRAKKADAVOM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1282 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3. Altogether there are four accused persons. Only accused Nos.1 and 2 are named in the FIR. The 3rd petitioner/accused has been brought on the array of accused later in the course of investigation. The crime was registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under sections 452 and 427 read with 149 IPC. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that on account of prior animosity, they allegedly trespassed into the residential building of the de facto complainant and unleashed acts of violence and mischief. The alleged incident took place on 3.2.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor confirms that the BA.1282/08 : 2 : petitioners are to be arrested in the crime. But, the learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. 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 the 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. 4. 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 BA.1282/08 : 3 : 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) aks