IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 596 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.458/2007 OF THE SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. BABU, KATTAYYATHU VEEDU, NEAR KOCHUNADA, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. CIBIN, S/O.BABU, KATTAYYATHU VEEDU, NEAR KOCHUNADA, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.596 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Altogether there are two accused persons. The first accused is the brother of the victim and the second accused is the son of the first accused. The de facto complainant, a woman, was allegedly attacked on account of prior animosity with dangerous weapons by the accused persons. She suffered injuries including a fracture. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. Though it was initially submitted that the matter was likely to be settled, now it is evident that the matter has not been settled between the parties. It is contended that the allegations raised are false. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs clearly point to the complicity of the petitioners. There is no settlement at all. This has been ascertained by subsequent questioning of the de facto complainant. There are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary B.A.No.596/08 2 equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The Case diary has been made available for my perusal. 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 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. 5. 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 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) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.596/08 3 B.A.No.596/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007