IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1077 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 391/07 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------- JOMY K.JOHNSON, S/O.K.G.JOHNSON, NELLITHANATH, KOLLAMANVILA JOMI BHAVAN, EDAMULAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1077 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. He, along with the co-accused, faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable under sections 324 and 307 IPC. There are three injured persons. The alleged incident took place on 26.8.07. Altogether there are two accused persons. The co-accused i.e. A2, was arrested on 26.8.07. The co-accused had come to this Court earlier with a prayer for regular bail and by order dated 8.10.07 in BA.5994/07 the said application for bail was dismissed. I have adverted to the facts in detail in that order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order and I am not, hence, adverting to the facts in any greater detail in this order. The victims have suffered serious injuries. Investigation is not complete. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. BA.1077/08 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. 3. 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 the 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 petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer BA.1077/08 : 3 : 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. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks