IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 7TH MARCH 2008 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1375 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.677/2008 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.23/2008 OF CHALISSERY POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 TO 4 -------------------------------------------- 1. BINOJ, S/O.SIVARAMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, VADAKKECHIRAKKAL HOUSE, KOTHACHIRA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SURESHBABU, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KUNDIL VEEDU, CUDDALLORE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. RAJESH.K.V., S/O.SANKARAN NAIR, CHAKKUMKUMARATH, KOTHACHIRA, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1375 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 to 4. Altogether there are five accused persons. On account of prior animosity, all the accused persons, who were members of an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons like iron rods had attacked the de facto complainant. He allegedly lost two teeth. The other injury suffered is only a lacerated wound (dimensions not mentioned) on the left hand and some contusion. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against them. Even if all the allegations were accepted, the inclusion of the offence under Section 308 I.P.C in the F.I.R eloquently declares that the motive of the de facto complainant with the help of an obliging police is only to vex and harass the petitioners. There is absolutely no justification to include the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. B.A.No.1375/08 2 3. The de facto complainant has entered appearance through a counsel. He opposes the application. He submits that it is part of the schemed and planned attack on the de facto complainant by the petitioners. The petitioners do not deserve any leniency. Anticipatory bail may not be granted. That would encourage the miscreants to mount further attacks on the victim, submits the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. He further points out that the second accused is involved in other crimes. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor also opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor however concedes that the State has no objection against application for regular bail being considered by the learned Magistrate eschewing the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. There is no allegation that anyone of the accused persons is a mercenary engaged by some other person to mount an attack on the de facto complainant. The nature of injuries recorded in the wound certificate has been read over to me by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied in these circumstances that this is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the B.A.No.1375/08 3 investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. However, I am satisfied that it can be directed that the learned Magistrate must consider such application for regular bail expeditiously. The learned Magistrate can consider the same ignoring the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. This petition can succeed only to the above extent. 6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. While considering such application, the learned Magistrate shall eschew and ignore the allegation raised under Section 308 I.P.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1375/08 4 B.A.No.1375/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007