IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1134 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 14/08 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ----------------------------- PRASANT, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUMON, KOCHU PARAMBATH HOUSE, MURIYAD P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, A/W. BA 1368 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.Nos. 1134 & 1368 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Applications for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 3 and 6. Altogether there are seven accused persons and two injured persons. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered under Section 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The alleged incident took place on 4.1.2008. Previous animosity is the alleged motive. The accused persons armed with dangerous weapons including knife, swords etc. had allegedly come to the scene of occurrence and had unleashed an attack on the victims. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The inclusion of the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. is made without any valid justification, submits the counsel. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.Nos. 1134 & 1368 of 2008 2 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the applications. He submits that the available indications do clearly suggest the complicity of the petitioners under Section 308 I.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail, submits the Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. This I agree with the learned Prosecutor is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must B.A.Nos. 1134 & 1368 of 2008 3 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm