IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1516 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.284/2008 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- SHAJAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKAD, RAYONPURAM P.O. PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1516 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is one of the two accused persons named in the F.I.R. It is alleged in the said F.I.R that in addition to accused 1 and 2, fifty others have also been found in the unlawful assembly. Allegations are raised inter alia under Sections 452 and 427 read with 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 19/2/2008 at about 9.40 p.m. Accused 1 and 2 had allegedly gone to a bar. They consumed liquor. There was some disagreement between the employees of the bar and Accused 1 and 2. They picked up a quarrel with the employees of the bar. They returned without making any payment. Subsequently they allegedly returned with a group of persons. They indulged in acts of violence. They trespassed into the bar. Loss of about Rs.1,00,000/- was allegedly caused to the bar. The crime was promptly registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. Accused 1 and 3 have already been arrested and enlarged on bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. He was not in B.A.No.1516/08 2 any way involved in the crime. Totally false allegations have been raised against him. In these circumstances, discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available inputs point to the complicity of the petitioner that he is named in the F.I.R. Scene mahazer clearly shows the nature of the damage and destruction suffered by the premises. In any view of the matter, there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C . 4. 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 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. B.A.No.1516/08 3 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1516/08 4 B.A.No.1516/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007