IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 791 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.92/08 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- 1. TONY,S/O.JOSE KALAPPURAKKUDI, RAMALLOOR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. TONY PETER,S/O.PETER POOVATHUMKUDI RAMALLOOR KARA,KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. ROBIN,S/O.ANTONY PUTHANPURAKKAL,RAMALLOOR KARA,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 791 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 to 4. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. The crime is registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.326 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. There are two injured persons in the crime. Iron rod is the weapon used. Fracture of the bone of the right arm is the injury allegedly suffered by one of the victims. The alleged incident took place on 25/1/08. The crime is registered on 26/1/08. While a function was going on, one of the injured was attack by the 4 accused persons and the other injured intervened to save him. He was also then attacked resulting in grievous injury to the latter and simple injury to the former. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend B.A. No. 791 OF 2008 -: 2 :- imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have not taken part in the alleged incident. They have been mistakenly arrayed as accused. The de facto complainant, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits, has realised the error committed by him in making allegations against the petitioners. He does not now have any grievance against the petitioners. The petitioners may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the light of the submissions to that effect on the previous date of the posting, the Investigator was directed to record the statement of the de facto complainant again and it is now very evident that there has not been any settlement of the dispute between the de facto complainant and the petitioners herein, though the de facto complainant states that the petitioners have been disparately attempting to silence him by offers to settle the dispute. No settlement has so far been reached, it is submitted. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which B.A. No. 791 OF 2008 -: 3 :- would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. 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, 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