IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 8080 of 2007(V) ------------------------------ CRIME 465/07 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- VINEETH, S/O.SAHADEVAN, AGED 21 YEARS, K.M.HOUSE, NEDUMANI, NENMENI POST, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 8080 OF 2007 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether there are four accused persons. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 326 and 307 IPC. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, had allegedly indulged in unworthy conduct against lady students. The de facto complainant and others had raised objections against such conduct. On account of such animosity, the accused persons allegedly attacked the de facto complainant and his friends. Two students suffered serious injuries including fractures. Iron rod and cricket bat were the objects used as weapons. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has been brought on BA.8080/07 : 2 : the array of accused only because of his friendship with the 1st accused against whom the de facto complainant entertained animus. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is specifically mentioned as an accused in the F.I.Statement. The materials presently collected clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable 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 of the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that there are no features in this case which would justify the 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 BA.8080/07 : 3 : 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) aks