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. 444 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 516/07 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED: ------------------------- 1. NISHAD, S/O.HYDER, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VENKIDANGHU VILLAGE, KUNDALIYUR AMSOM, PADOOR DESOM. 2. VINOJ @ VINU, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, MUNTHANDASSERY HOUSE, VENKIDANGHU VILLAGE, KUNDALIYUR AMSOM, PADOOR DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR 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. 444 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are only two accused persons. The alleged incident took place on 2.12.2007 at 8.30 p.m. On account of the strain in the relationship, the petitioners had allegedly attacked the two injured persons. Weapon used was a sword. Crime has been registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. They have been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy because of prior animosity. Subject to any appropriate terms they may be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the second accused has criminal antecedents. Many cases are registered against him. Proceedings under B.A.No. 444 of 2008 2 Section 107 Cr.P.C. are being initiated against the second petitioner. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that there are no features in this case justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must be directed to appear 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) tm Judge B.A.No. 444 of 2008 3