IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 559 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.16/08 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- THOMAS @ PAPPACHAN, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 48 YEARS, VENGAPALLIL HOUSE, KARITHODE, MAVADY P.O., NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.559 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused in a crime registered under Section 452 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had trespassed into the residential building of the de facto complainant at 10 p.m on 19/01/2008 having made preparations to commit offences. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to him, allegations are being raised vexatiously. He is actually the victim of aggression and not the offender. A counter case has been registered also. Copy of the F.I.R in the counter case has been produced as Annexure 1. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The perusal of the F.I.R in the counter case clearly shows that even the petitioner in the F.I.statement concedes that he had gone into the house of the de facto complainant on that night - obviously for the purpose of questioning the de facto B.A.No.559/08 2 complainant for certain alleged conduct of his. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner hastens to submit that the said F.I.statement has not been correctly recorded and the petitioner has already made objections against the improper recording in the F.I.statement in that case. Be that as it may, I shall not embark on a detailed discussion about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that after considering all the relevant inputs I am unable to perceive any features in this case which would justify 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 petitioner 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 petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and applies 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) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.559/08 3 B.A.No.559/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007