IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1755 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.21/08 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------- JAYAPRAKASH @ JAYAKUTTAN S/O.GOVINDAN ASARI, A.J.NIVAS NARAKATHINKALA, ANAPPARA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VITHURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1755 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first accused. Altogether there are two accused persons. The second accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The alleged incident took place on 22/1/2008. Both the accused persons allegedly went to the house of the de facto complainant and abused. He closed the front door. Both accused trespassed into the house and attacked the de facto complainant. Serious incised injury was inflicted on him. Crime has been registered under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. Investigation is pending. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may now be enlarged on bail. The only non-bailable offence alleged is the one punishable under Section 452 I.P.C, points out the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This B.A.No.1755/08 2 is a fit case where the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have gone through the F.I.R in detail. I have perused the wound certificate which reveals the nature of the prompt allegations made to the doctor and also the nature of injuries suffered. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. 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. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1755/08 3 B.A.No.1755/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007