IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 224 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 489/07 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 AND 2: --------------------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KALATHINKAL HOUSE, KEEKAN P.O. 2. JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, PALLIPPUZHA HOUSE, MOTTAMMAL, KEEKEN VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 224 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2. Altogether nine persons were originally arrayed as accused in the FIR. Later three of them were deleted from the array of accused. Four other persons, who had come to this Court with an application for regular bail, were granted regular bail by this Court as per order dated 14.12.07 in B.A.7729/07. 2. The accused persons face allegations in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 436 read with 149 IPC. On account of political animosity, shops were set to fire resulting in a loss of Rs.2.5 lakhs. The de facto complainant belongs to the C.P.I.(M) whereas the accused persons belong to the B.J.P. The names of the petitioners do appear as accused in the FIR though the informant does not specifically assert that he is an eye witness to the occurrence as had seen the named accused indulging in any overt acts. BA.224/08 : 2 : 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in these circumstances, prays that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications point to the complicity of the petitioners. Their names do appear in the FIR though the informant does not claim to be an eye witness to the actual occurrence. But the subsequent interrogation of the other witnesses reveal that the petitioners are guilty of the offence alleged against them. In these circumstances, the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. There are no circumstances which would warrant or justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C., submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. 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 can BA.224/08 : 3 : justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. At the moment I find no reason to throw over board the materials collected to show culpable involvement of the petitioners. 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. 6. 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) aks