IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7913 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 213/07 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED. ---------------------------------------- VASANTHI, W/O. LATE THANKACHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, MULLAMALA HOUSE, YENDAYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.BENNY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: STATE. ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 213 OF 2007 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 7913 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, who is the brother of the deceased husband of the petitioner, faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 308 I.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that she, who was allegedly found by the defacto complainant to be in a compromising position with the first accused, husband of the defacto complainant, attacked the defacto complainant along with her husband resulting in very serious injury to the victim. The alleged incident took place on 6.12.2007. Within 1 ½ hours, the victim had reached the doctor to whom the alleged cause has been narrated clearly as attacked by her husband and his lover. The F.I.R. was registered on 13.12.2007, where fairly detailed narration of the incident is given. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No. 7913 of 2007 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is strain in the relationship between the first accused and the defacto complainant - spouses. Fanciful allegations are being raised against the petitioner herein by the defacto complainant on the unjustified assumption that she is responsible for the strain in their relationship. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at present the allegations are being directed against the petitioner in an attempt to save the first accused, the husband of the defacto complainant. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all available indications now point convincingly to the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner does not deserve to arm herself with an order of anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. At the request of the court the case diary was placed before me. I have perused the same. At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious B.A.No. 7913 of 2007 3 consideration of all other relevant circumstances, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm