IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1457 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.32/08 OF KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. SAFEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'POOLORA', PANTHEERPADAM IN KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SIRAJ, S/O.UMMER, AGED 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT PALAKKAL MEETHAL, PANTHEERPADAM IN KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKKODE TALUK. 3. JUNAID, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'PULIKKAL', PANTHEERPADAM IN KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. FAISAL, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'AAKILPURAYIL", PANTHEERPADAM IN KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. IRSHAD K.K., S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'K.K.KARAYIL HOUSE', PANTHEERPADAM IN KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1457 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 2, 3, 4, 7 and 1 respectively in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. Altogether there are 10 accused persons. The crux of the allegations is that the accused persons on 27.01.08 entered a restaurant run by the defacto complainant. They picked up a quarrel regarding the availability of a family room there. Thereafter they indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence inside the restaurant resulting in loss of Rs.30,000/-. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the B.A.No.1457 of 2008 2 extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the scene mahazar bears telltale indications of the wanton acts of mischief and violence which had taken place inside the restaurant. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features available in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. 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/-