IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1738 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 100/08 OF KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS /ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. JAMSHEER, S/O.SAIDALAVI, MULAYATH HOUSE, KLARI, PERUMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. HARIS, S/O.MUHAMMED KUTTY, VARIKKODAN HOUSE, KLARI, PERUMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. SOORYANARAYANAN, S/O.KARAPPAN, CHEENIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMANNA, KLARI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. PRADEEP KUMAR @ BABU, S/O.VASU, THANDAN VEETIL,PERUMANNA, KLARI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. YOUNUS, S/O.KUNHIMOIDEEN, CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA, KLARI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 1738 OF 2008 F ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5. Altogether there are five accused persons. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under section 377 IPC. The alleged incident took place on 23.2.08. FIR was registered on 25.2.08. The victim is a young boy aged about 13 years. Five accused persons had allegedly taken the boy to an isolated place and indulged in unnatural sexual intercourse with the boy. The boy did not complain to his mother on the same day. He complained to his uncle on the next day. Thereafter, crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are totally false. There was some strain in the BA.1738/08 : 2 : relationship between the brother of the 1st accused and the alleged victim. In that quarrel, the accused had intervened. Because of that animosity, the alleged victim has raised totally false and vexatious allegations against the accused persons. The petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. All the available indications do clearly point to the complicity of the petitioners. There are absolutely no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C., 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 satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned BA.1738/08 : 3 : Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks