IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1952 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.66/08 OF NAMOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- S.SHAJI, S/O.SUDHAKRAN, ARAPPURAKKAL VEEDU, NEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.,KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1952 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether, there are 3 accused persons. Accused 2 and 3 have already arrested and enlarged on bail, it is submitted. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with the co-accused, went to the printing establishment of the de facto complainant in search of an employee of the said establishment with whom the accused persons allegedly had some animosity. Such person was not available in the establishment and the defacto complainant, who works as an Editor in the said establishment, wanted to know why the accused persons had so gone into the establishment. This allegedly infuriated the accused persons and they indulged in wanton acts of mischief and assault and showered abuses B.A. No. 1952 of 2008 -: 2 :- against the de facto complainant. It is, in these circumstances, that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint and the crime happened to be registered. The accused persons face allegations, inter alia, under Sec.452 of the IPC. That is the only non-bailable offence alleged. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that this is an ordinary and normal case in which the petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. There are no circumstances whatsoever justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though accused 2 and 3 have already been granted regular bail, the petitioner apprehends that he may be obliged to remain in custody unnecessarily before his application for regular bail is taken up for consideration on merits. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am unable to find any features in this case that can justify or warrant the B.A. No. 1952 of 2008 -: 3 :- invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. I have no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioners' applications for regular bail on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No special or specific directions appear to be necessary. Every court must do the same. Sufficient general directions on this aspect have already been issued in the decision reported in Alice George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police (2003 (1) KLT 339). 3. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 B.A. No. 1952 of 2008 -: 4 :-