IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1005 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.83/08 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. SAJEEV CHANDRAN, AGED 27, S/O.CHANDRAN, KOOLIPLAKAL, EDAPPILLY KARA, MUTTOM. 2. JERIMON, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MADATHIN KATTIL HOUSE, MARALAKARA, KARINKUNNA VILLAGE. 3. RAJAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, MADATHIN KATTIL HOUSE, MARALAKARA, KARINKUNNA VILLAGE. 4. CHANDRAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, KOOLIPLAKAL, EDAPPILLY KARA, MUTTOM. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJAR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1005 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 4. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, unleashed an attack on the de facto complainant. Dangerous weapons were used. Serious injuries were inflicted on the de facto complainant. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. Investigation is in progress. The crime was initially registered only under Secs.324 and 323 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. All the four petitioners are named in the F.I.R. In the course of investigation, allegation under Sec.308 of the IPC has been included. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that B.A. No. 1005 of 2008 -: 2 :- the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The allegations are untrue. At any rate, the inclusion of the allegation under Sec.308 of the IPC is totally unjustified. That section of offence has been included solely for the purpose of vexation and to ensure that the petitioner continues in custody for as along a period as possible. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are very valid reasons for the inclusion of the allegation under Sec.308 of the IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor, in particular, requests the court to peruse the wound certificate issued after the examination of the injured. He also prays that the statement of the Doctor, who issued the said certificate, may also be perused. 4. I have perused the same. I have perused the First Information Statement also. I have considered the nature of the weapons used as also the nature of the injuries which are described in the wound certificate dated 29/1/08. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations under Sec.308 of the IPC or the credibility of the data collected in support of such allegations. Suffice it to say that I have carefully perused all the relevant inputs, particularly the nature B.A. No. 1005 of 2008 -: 3 :- of the injuries described in the wound certificate. I need only mention that I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am unable to agree that the inclusion of the allegation under Sec.308 of the IPC is not justified or that the same has been done with vexatious and mala fide intent. I have been particularly taken through the 5 injuries described in the wound certificate. 5. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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 B.A. No. 1005 of 2008 -: 4 :-