IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2076 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.72/08 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------------------------- SUBRAN, S/O. KOCHAYYAPPAN, AGED 44 YEARS, ANTHRAPILLY HOUSE, NAYARANGADY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2076 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations under Section 304 I.P.C and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. The alleged incident took place on 25.01.08. In violation of the provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, grossly endangering human life, the petitioner, who runs a quarry, had used explosive substances to blast rocks and on account of the inept manner in which the explosion was carried out contrary to the provisions of the Act, a mass of stone fell on the head of the victim who suffered injuries and succumbed to the same later. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Anticipatory bail may be granted to him, it is prayed. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances whatsoever which can justify the prayer for B.A.No.2076 of 2008 2 invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I find no features in this case which can justify or warrant the 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 petitioner 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 petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and applies 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/-