IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2030 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.29/08 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS : A1 TO A3 ------------------------- 1. SANTHOSH, AGE 29, (A1) S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLA PEROOR MELAI VELLAPALLI VEEDU, PEROOR DESOM PEROOR VILLAGE. 2. DILEEP, AGE 27, (A2) S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLA PEROOR MELAI VELLAPALLI VEEDU, PEROOR DESOM PEROOR VILLAGE. 3. KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGE 29, (A3) S/O.CHELLAPPAN KEEZHPEROOR ELAYATTUKONATHU VEEDU PEROOR DESOM, VELLALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2030 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 326 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The first accused is the principal accused. He had allegedly entrusted an autorikshaw in the workshop of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant is the Sales Executive of that workshop. The first accused was allegedly dissatisfied with the quality of service that was rendered by the workshop. Enraged by that, he along with the other accused, trespassed into the workshop and had alledgedly indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence. The defacto complainant was attacked. A person in the workshop, who intervened, was also allegedly assaulted. One of them suffered a grievous hurt also. The incident took place on 18.1.2008. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. B.A.No. 2030 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. There was evidently a dispute regarding the quality of service rendered. The petitioners had no intention whatsoever to commit any offence. Even assuming that an unfortunate incident had ensued following the quarrel, there is no reason to infer any common intention to commit the offence. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available inputs clinchingly point to the complicity of the petitioners. This is not the stage where the materials have to be weighed in golden scale. A common intention was entertained by the accused, who went to the workshop evidently for the purpose of committing the acts of violence. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. A grievous hurt has been B.A.No. 2030 of 2008 3 suffered by one injured/victim. The incident had taken place inside the workshop. I find no reason at the moment to infer that there was no common intention for the accused. I am unable to find 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 petitioners. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners 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 ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm