IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2007 / 17TH SRAVANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 4789 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.264/07 OF WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. BINOY N.M., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. MATHAI N.P., NEDUMPURAYIL HOUSE, PULLAKANDAM, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOY V.V., AGED 33, S/O. VARGHESE, VANAKUDIYIL HOUSE, PULLAMKANDAM, P.O.KATTILAPOOVAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT ------------------------ THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY, 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 08/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.4789 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2007 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are two accused persons. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that they on account of animosity arising out of family disputes, attacked and chased the defacto complainant who tried to speed away in his motorcycle and ultimately took shelter in a nearby house. The petitioners allegedly trespassed in the said house and unleashed an attack on the victim. The motorcycle belonging to the defacto complainant was allegedly set fire also. The alleged incident took place on 29.06.07. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised on account of prior animosity, it is urged. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the B.A.No.4789 of 2007 2 Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course, 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 unable to find any feature in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-