IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1891 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.135 OF 2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.2 & 3 ----------------- 1. JAFAR, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, AGED 23 YEARS, ARABIKKATATH HOUSE, ATHINHAL, AJANUR VILLAGE. 2. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.KUHABDULLA, AGED 28 YEARS, ATHINHAL, AJANUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.SANTHOSHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- S.H.O. HOSDRUG POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1891 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2 and 3. Altogether there are 3 named accused persons arrayed now. The shop room of the defacto complainant, who belongs to the I.N.L, was allegedly set fire to on the wee hours of 25.02.08. The F.I statement was lodged promptly in the morning of that day. No person is arrayed as an accused in the F.I statement. Investigation continued. The 1st accused has been arrested. He has been enlarged on regular bail. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolutely innocent. Formerly they had their loyalty to the I.U.M.L. There is absolutely no merit in the allegations raised. The petitioners have to go abroad in connection with their employment. Vexatious proceedings are initiated against them with the sole purpose of harassing them. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications point to the culpability of the petitioner. They were seen near the scene of occurrence at about the time of B.A.No.1891 of 2008 2 occurrence. No valid explanation has been offered. The petitioners have to be closely interrogated. At any rate, there are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. At the moment, no material exists to jump to the conclusion that the allegations are raised without any bona fides or with vexatious intent. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- B.A.No.1891 of 2008 3