IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7970 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME 344/07 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------ 1. THANKACHAN, AGED 33, S/O. ANTONY JOSEPH, KOTTAKA PARAMBIL HOUSE, MUDAPOIKA P.O., NARIVARAMUNDA, NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRAN, AGED 38, S/O. KANNAN KALYANI, SHIVAN KOVIL HOUSE, MANGALA DAM P.O., ODDUVOUR DESOM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DY. S.P.KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.344/2007), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 7970 OF 2007 E ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452, 324 and 354 read with 34 IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioners had committed house trespass into a building in the possession of the de facto complainant and had indulged in acts of violence and mischief. The accused persons were allegedly carrying on sale of illicit liquor and the de facto complainant had allegedly raised objections against such activity. This allegedly operated as a motive. The incident took place on 9.12.07. Though initially allegations were raised under Section 3 of the S.C. & S.T.(P.A.) Act also, those allegations have now been dropped. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that BA.7970/07 : 2 : the petitioners are absolutely innocent. In fact, the petitioners were taken into custody by the police and were manhandled but they were not shown as arrested so far. In these circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no tangible data to conclude that the petitioners were arrested earlier. 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 appear before the investigating officer or the BA.7970/07 : 3 : 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