IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl.No. 2111 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.145/08 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS : --------------- 1. R.RAJAN, S/O.JOHN JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, CHOOZHATTITHARA HOUSE, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALAI. 2. BIJU RAJ, S/O.R.RAJAN, AGED 32 YEARS, CHOOZHATTITHARA HOUSE, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALAI. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2111 OF 2008 B ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They are father and son. Altogether there are only two accused persons. They are both named in the FIR. The alleged incident took place on 1.3.08. There are two injured persons, one of them had suffered fracture of the frontal bone. Sickle is the weapon used. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They were not aggressors but were victims of aggression. The 1st accused had suffered some injuries and he was hospitalised also. False and vexatious allegations have been raised against the petitioners to cover the fault and the contumacious conduct of BA.2111/08 : 2 : the de facto complainant/injured. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may not be compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through all the relevant data. Wound certificate has been read over to me. The relevant portion of the FIR has also been brought to my notice. 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 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 petitioners must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. BA.2111/08 : 3 : 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) aks