IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3997 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.1043/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION ............................ PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- M.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, KRISHNA VIHAR, PADINJATTINKARA, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA (CRIME NO.1043/2008 OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:\ Rs/ R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3997 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the second accused and faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under the Explosive Substances Act and Section 304 read with 34 I.P.C. It is alleged that the petitioner along with the co-accused was responsible for an explosion which took place consequent to irresponsible and improper handling of pop guns and materials for the same in connection with a temple festival. The said incident had resulted in the death of two persons. Crime has been registered inter alia under Section 304 I.P.C. The petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail and the Sessions Court as well as the bail Bench of this court had already rejected the said applications for anticipatory bail, it is conceded. 2. The petitioner has come to this court at this juncture with the contention that the inclusion of the allegation under Section 304 I.P.C is not in any way justified. Allegations under Section 304 I.P.C or even 304A I.P.C will not lie against the Crl.M.C.No.3997/08 2 petitioner and the inclusion of the said allegation and arraying of the petitioner as an accused is totally unjustified, it is contended. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be issued for discontinuance of the investigation against the petitioner atleast for the offence under Section 304 I.P.C. 3. I am afraid, it is too early for this court to hazard an authentic opinion on the question. I shall carefully avoid any more detailed discussion on the subject. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked to interfere with the inclusion of the allegation under Section 304 I.P.C in the F.I.R or the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused for the said crime. The duty, power and obligation of the police to conduct an investigation into the said crime does not deserve to be interfered with at this juncture invoking powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, I am satisfied. 4. The applications for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner having already been rejected and the petitioner not having challenged the same, it is for the petitioner now to Crl.M.C.No.3997/08 3 surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal course. Needless to say, such application, if filed after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3997/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3997/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008