IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2150 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.176/2008 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- P.S.PRASANTH, AGED 25, S/O C.PRABHAKARAN NAIR, P.S.BHAVAN, IRUMBA, ARUVIKKARA P.O., NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.2150 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole accused. He faces allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 326 I.P.C. The de facto complainant is an autorickshaw driver. He allegedly drove his vehicle at an excessive speed. The petitioner, a local person got infuriated. There was a wordy altercation. The petitioner allegedly assaulted the victim with a cricket bat. Four teeth of the de facto complainant were broken. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False allegations are being raised against the petitioner. He may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are serious. The petitioner has no right to take law in his own hands and attempt to punish any person for the alleged indiscretion committed by him. In any view of the matter, the B.A.No.2150/08 2 petitioner may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the normal course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. 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 would justify 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 in the normal and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr B.A.No.2150/08 3 B.A.No.2150/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007