IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1965 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.36/08 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS /A1 TO A6: ----------------- 1. BIJU.B.NAIR, AGED 38, (A1), S/O.BAHULEYAN NAIR, KUDAYAL MARTHANDA VILASAM, KUDYAL P.O., ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. GOPAKUMAR,AGED 38, (A2), S/O.VELAPPAN NAIR, PAKKODU VEEDU, VELLARADA VILLAGE. 3. VIJAYAN, AGED 38, (A3), S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, SRE BHADRA, ULIKKODU,KARIKKAMANACODE, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 4. MANIKANTAN @ SAJEEV, AGED 27 (4), S/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, KAITHOTTUMOOLA, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU,KUDAYA P.O., ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 5. THAMBU @ SURESH, AGED 28 (A5), S/O.GOPI, SURESH BHAVAN,KURUTHAMCODE, ANAVOOR VILLAGE. 6. AMBILI @ BIJU, AGED 26 (A6), S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, KAITHOTTUMOOLA, KIZHAKKUMKARA PUTHENVEEDU,KUDAYA P.O., ANAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPEPCTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1965 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 to 6. There are six accused persons. They face allegations in crime No.36/08 of Vellarada police station registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Section 326 read with 149 I.P.C. Though there was an earlier allegation under Section 379 I.P.C, the said allegation has subsequently been withdrawn. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are victims of aggression and not the aggressors. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there is a case and counter case in respect of the same incident. Investigation is going on in both cases. There is absolutely no justification in the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The victim has suffered fracture. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may be directed to surrender and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. B.A.No.1965/08 2 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. The nature of the injuries is revealed from the case diary. 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 petitioners surrender before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.1965/08 3 B.A.No.1965/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007