IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 52 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO.630/07 OF THE VARKALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER --------------------------- MOHAMMED ILLYAS, S/O.MOHAMMED ASLAM, MALAPPURAM PUTHEN VEEDU, ALIYARAKKAM, CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARKALA POLICE STATION, VARKALA. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 52 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Secs.326 and 308 of the IPC. He is the sole accused in the crime. The alleged incident took place at about 12 noon on 30/11/07. It is alleged that, on account of prior animosity, the petitioner had attacked the de facto complainant who had got into his car along with the friends of his at about 12 noon on 30/11/07. A dangerous weapon was used for the infliction of the injuries. The de facto complainant had suffered a number of injuries, including fracture of the tibia. The injured was taken to the Doctor immediately. The First Information Statement is seen recorded on 2/12/07. In the said First Information Statement, specific allegations are raised against the petitioner herein. B.A. No. 52 OF 2008 -: 2 :- Investigation has commenced. A witness - a friend of the de facto complainant who was available with him in the car at the relevant time, has also been questioned and his statement has been recorded. It is alleged that the petitioner is a goonda of the locality and that he had assaulted the de facto complainant because the de facto complainant had earlier deterred him from causing confusion and quarrels in his work place. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a stranger to the de facto complainant and there is no reason why he should be falsely implicated by the petitioner herein. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the totality of the materials collected clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. The Case Diary has been placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same. It is, of course, seen that to the Doctor, when he was taken to the hospital, the de facto complainant had alleged that there was an attack by 11 persons. That aspect has not been seen clarified in the questioning of the de facto complainant or the eye witness. Be that as it may, on B.A. No. 52 OF 2008 -: 3 :- an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which can persuade this Court to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 4. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or 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