IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 689 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 37/08 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/A1 & 2 ----------------- 1. SANTHOSH,S/O.KOCHU KUNJU AGED 32 YEARS, SANTHOSH BHAVAN KURUTHANKODU P.O., KATTAKADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SHIJIN S/O. SIVANKUTTY AGED 25 YEARS, SHIJIN BHAVAN KURUTHANKODU P.O., KATTAKADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.SABU.S KALIARMOOLA RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 689 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are three accused persons. The crime is registered for offences, inter alia, under Section 326 I.P.C. Both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. The alleged incident took place on 19.1.2008. Fracture has been suffered by the victim. He was allegedly beaten with iron rod. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a counter case has also been registered as Crime No. 67 of 2008. 3. The learned Prosecutor admits that a counter case has been registered, but points out that long after the incident only as a ploy to create a defence in this prosecution a private complaint has been filed on 12.2.2008. The same has been referred to the police for due investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Investigation does not reveal commission of any offence against B.A.No. 689 of 2008 2 the petitioners. The petitioners are not shown to have suffered any serious injuries, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that there are no features in this case justifying or warranting 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 be directed to appear 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 proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) tm Judge B.A.No. 689 of 2008 3