IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2134 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.54/08 OF CHIRAYINKIL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1, 2, 4 & 6 ------------------------------------------------ 1. TITUS, S/O.KESAVAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, SOUTH ARAYATHURUTHI, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL P.O. 2. JOSE, S/O.THAMPI, LAKSHAM VEEDU, SOUTH ARAYATHURUTHI, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL P.O. 3. REGI, S/O.PAZEAZ, LAKSHAM VEEDU,SOUTH ARAYATHURUTHI, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL P.O. 4. MOLY, D/O.SUNNY, LAKSHAM VEEDU, SOUTH ARAYATHURUTHI, SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No.2134 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 ORDER The petitioners are accused 1, 2, 4 and 6 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.452 of the IPC – that is the only non-bailable offence alleged against the petitioners in the crime. According to the de facto complainant, there were some earlier incidents on 29/2/08. He complained to the police; but no action has been taken by the police. On 2/3/08 at about 10 p.m. the accused persons – 6 in all, allegedly were members of an unlawful assembly which went to the house of the de facto complainant, entered the same and indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence. The F.I.R. was registered. Investigation is in progress. Some boundary dispute which has been in existence for a long period of time had allegedly trigerred the incidents B.A. No.2134 of 2008 -: 2 :- on 29/2/08 and 2/3/08. Investigation is in progress. The 3rd accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Allegations about both the incidents on 29/2/08 and 2/3/08 are now raised in the present First Information Statement lodged. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. No serious injuries have been suffered by the de facto complainant in the incident which took place on 2/3/08. In these circumstances, the petitioners may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are tell tale indications of the wanton acts of mischief and violence indulged in by the miscreants inside the house of the de facto complainant. The scene mahazar bears eloquent testimony for such improper and culpable conduct on the part of the petitioners. The 3rd accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be B.A. No.2134 of 2008 -: 3 :- directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am not persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is an eminently fit case where the petitioners must be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and the seek regular bail in the normal and usual course. 5. 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