IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2668 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.198/08 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. P.P.SURESH, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 2. CHUNNAMBI PRASAD, S/O.P.P.KRISHNAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 3. VADAKUMBATH JITHIN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 4. PUTHIYA PARAMBATH JANARDHANAN, S/O.KORAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 5. VADAKUMBATH PAVITHRAN, S/O.KUNHAMBU, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 6. THAYATHUVALAPPIL RATHEESH, S/O.KORAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 7. MACHUNAN RENJITH, S/O.VHARADAN, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. 8. BHARADHAN.V.V., S/O.AMBU, KAKKAMPARA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLICL PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2668 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused in a crime registered alleging offences under Sections 452 and 427 I.P.C. The petitioners who owe allegiance to CPM had allegedly trespassed into a building occupied by the members of RSS and had indulged in wanton acts of mischief and destruction. Crime has been registered suo moto by the police. No person has been named in the F.I.R. In the course of the investigation, the petitioners herein as well as ten others have been shown to be the accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. Direction may be issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners, it is prayed. 3. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find 2 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 petitioners. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing 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 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