IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1726 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 17/08 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ SUNIL, PARUTHYVILA VEEDU, IRICHELLOOR, PLAMOOTUKADA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1726 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, actuated by animus against the defacto complainant, who is a witness to the occurrence in another crime allegedly committed by the petitioner against the brother of the defacto complainant herein, had intimidated and threatened the defacto complainant by running after him with a chopper into his own house, where he tried to take shelter from the petitioner herein. The alleged incident took place on 4.2.2008. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is really the victim of aggression and not the aggressor. The police, in collusion with the defacto complainant is helping him to foist false case B.A.No. 1726 of 2008 2 against the petitioner. He may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available indications do satisfactorily point to the complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. B.A.No. 1726 of 2008 3 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm