IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 208 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.430/2007 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/NOT SO FAR MADE ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------- 1. U.ANILKUMAR, S/O.UNNIPILLA, RADHAMANDHIRAM, ELAMADU P.O. AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SUBHASH, S/O.SADASIVAN, SUDHAMANDIRAM, ELAMADU P.O. AYUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.208 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners apprehend arrest as accused in a crime registered for offences punishable inter alia under Section 307 I.P.C. There are four injured persons. The alleged incident took place at about 1.30 p.m on 15/12/2007. Five miscreants allegedly came to the scene of the crime in a Maruti van. Two of them jumped out of the vehicle and attacked the victims - four in all using dangerous weapons like sword and chopper. All the four persons suffered injuries. One of them suffered a serious injury including a fracture, it is alleged. They were rushed to the hospital. One of the injured gave the F.I statement. In the F.I statement he has not named any person as accused. About five persons who came in the car and had indulged in overt acts are alleged to be the accused in the F.I.R. In the course of investigation, one of the seriously injured victim who was earlier admitted in the I.C.U was questioned. He was able to identify three persons who came in the car as he allegedly had prior acquaintance with them. Two victims who came out of the car and unleashed the attack B.A.No.208/08 2 have not been identified and they continue in the array of unidentified accused as accused 1 and 2. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused 3 and 4 consequent to the version of the principal injured witness. They had been brought in the array of accused only as per the report dated 17/12/2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are not in any way connected with the crime. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against them. In these circumstances, it is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the victim who had suffered grievous injuries could not be questioned on the date of the incident or on the next day. When he was questioned on 17/12/2007, specific clue about the identity of the petitioners as accused 3 to 5 who had come in the van and who remained in the van was revealed. There is no reason now to doubt or suspect the version of such injured person. Only if the petitioners are arrested and interrogated, can the investigating officer get specific clues about the identity B.A.No.208/08 3 of accused 1 and 2. The petitioners may not be permitted to arm themselves with an order of anticipatory bail. They may be directed to resort to the ordinary course of surrendering before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.208/08 4 B.A.No.208/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007