IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 395 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.316/07 OF CONTRONMENT POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1, 3 & 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJEEV, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING AT 12/846, BARTON HILL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANOJ, S/O.SHERIEF, T.C.14/1044, SELINE BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SIJIN, S/O.STEPHEN'S T.C.34/1855, VALIATHOPPU, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR, CONTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 395 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1, 3 and 4. Altogether, there are 8 accused persons. All the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.308 of the IPC. The 2nd accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The alleged incident took place on 7/11/07. The de facto complainant was allegedly attacked on account of prior animosity by the accused persons acting in collusion. He was attacked with a jacky lever. He admittedly has not suffered any serious or grievous injury. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. The 2nd accused has already been B.A. No. 395 OF 2008 -: 2 :- granted regular bail by this Court, it is further submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners have criminal antecedents. There is no semblance of a suggestion even that the powers of arrest which the police have are about to be misused or abused. The mere fact that the victim has not actually suffered any grievous or serious injury is too meager and inadequate a circumstance to jump to the conclusion that Sec.308 of the IPC has been included with vexatious or oblique motive. The fact that the 2nd accused has been granted regular bail, after he remained in custody for some period of time, is also not a satisfactory reason to justify the invocation of the discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners, like the 2nd accused, must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, B.A. No. 395 OF 2008 -: 3 :- 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. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge