IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. BASANT TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1322 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 862/07 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION ................ APPLICANT / 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- RAFEEK, S/O.ABUBAKER, THERUVILA VEEDU, MUKKALA, NETTAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1322 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first accused. Altogether there are eight accused persons shown in the F.I.R., two named persons and six others. The petitioner is one of the named persons. The alleged incident took place on 6.12.2007. Crime was initially registered under Sections 326 and 397 r/w. 149 I.P.C. In the course of investigation the police have come to the conclusion that the allegation under Section 397 I.P.C. need not be pressed. The victim has suffered serious injures, including a fracture of right forearm. The crux of the allegations is that on account of prior animosity which stemmed from an earlier incident that had taken place in a hall where a marriage was going on, the accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and such assembly armed with dangerous weapons had attacked the defacto complainant. Prompt F.I.R. has been lodged. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. B.A.No. 1322 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that all the available indications do convincingly point to the complicity of the petitioner. Allegations are serious. Fracture has been suffered by the victim. At any rate there are no features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, submits the Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice B.A.No. 1322 of 2008 3 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) Judge tm