IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1921 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.514/07 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER : 6TH ACCUSED ---------------------------- IRSHAD, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER IRSHAD MANZIL, VALAVUPAHA VILLAGE, CHITHARA KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADAKKAL POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1921 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 6th accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. There are 7 named accused including the petitioner and 8 unnamed ones. The accused persons were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly and had on account of prior animosity allegedly proceeded to attack the defacto complainant. Chilly powder was sprayed. Wooden sticks were allegedly used for commission of the offence. Two lacerated injuries were caused to the victim. The alleged occurrence took place on 08.12.07. Investigation is in progress. All the other named accused have already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is a disabled person. He had nothing to do with the incident in question. Merely because he happens to be the cleaner of a bus belonging to a school management he has been brought on the array of accused. The petitioner may now be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. B.A.No.1921 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The allegations are serious. There is absolutely no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I note that the petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case, where the petitioner must surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer 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/- B.A.No.1921 of 2008 3