IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1679 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 106/08 OF KORATTY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS ----------------- 1. ANIYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KAVALAN, KAKKAT HOUSE, MAMBRA POST, WEST KORATTY. 2. BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AMMINI, KAKKAT HOUSE, MAMBRA POST, WEST KORATTY. 3. CHANDRAN AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KAVALAN, KAKKAT HOUSE, MAMBRA POST, WEST KORATTY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORATTY POLICE STATION, KORATTY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1679 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3. They are named in the F.I.R. There are six other accused also. The alleged incident took place at 7.30 p.m. on 8.2.2008. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Fracture of the mandible is the injury suffered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. There is some dispute between the persons of the locality about the drawal of water from a public tap. The incident occurred in connection with that dispute. There are allegations and counter allegations raised. In any view of the matter the petitioners do not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No. 1679 of 2008 2 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available inputs reveal the complicity of the petitioners. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. They may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must be directed to surrender before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual and ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm