IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 29TH APRIL 2008 / 9TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2646 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 32/2008 OF MELUKAVU POLICE STATION CRMP.838/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 ---------------------------------------------- 1. KUMARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, VADAKKUMBAGATH NEDUMBARAKKAL HOUSE, MELUKAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SUSHEELA, W/O.KUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, VADAKKUMBAGATH NEDUMBARAKKAL HOUSE, MELUKAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2646 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners, spouses, are accused 1 and 2. Their son is the third accused. They face allegations in a crime registered under Section 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Chopper is the weapon allegedly used. The accused persons allegedly shared the common intention to attack the defacto complainant, brother of the second accused. The incident took place on 17.3.2008. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. No weapon was used. In the course of altercation, the defacto complainant has suffered the injuries. At any rate, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available inputs clearly reveal the complicity of B.A.No. 2646 of 2008 2 the petitioners. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find 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 petitioners. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners 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 petitioners appear before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm