IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1977 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.157/08 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O SOMANATHAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKE NEDUVELIL VEEDU, MANGARAM, PANDALAM VILLAGE. 2. MAHESH SOMAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, MANGALAM MUKADIYIL, MUDIYOORKKONAM, PANDALAM VILLAGE. 3. A.BIJU, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O AYYAPPAN, BINDU BHAVAN, POOZHIKKADU, KURAMPALA. 4. S.AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O SIVAN PILLAI, SIVA BHAVAN, POOZHIKKADU, PANDALAM. 5. VARGHESE GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O GEORGE, MINI BHAVAN, MUDIYOORKKONAM, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON 26/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1977 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 5. They face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 332 I.P.C and Section 3(1) of the P.D.P.P Act. The alleged incident took place on 28.01.08. A group of persons had allegedly trespassed into the office of the K.S.E.B and had indulged in wanton acts of violence and mischief. They were allegedly perturbed by the official conduct of an employee of the K.S.E.B, who disconnected energy supply to the party office of the petitioners. This allegedly operated as the motive. Crime has been registered. All the 5 petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. In the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.1977 of 2008 2 3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am persuaded to agree that there are no features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned 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. 4. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-