IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1986 of 2008() ----------------------------- CR.NO.84/08 OF MANJESHWAR POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. K. NARASIMHA MOORTHY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANA HOLLA, KAJEKODI HOUSE, KADAMBAR VILLAGE, P.O. KADAMBAR, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. PRABHA ANGADI PADABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA HOLLA, ANGADI PADABU HOUSE, P.O. MANJESHWAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: STATE: ------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.1986 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are the accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 452 and 427 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 12/3/2008. Because of animosity arising from a property dispute, the accused persons had allegedly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and had indulged in acts of intimidation and violence. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The scene mahazar shows the nature of the damage caused to the building in question, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. It is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied B.A.No.1986/08 2 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 B.A.No.1986/08 3 B.A.No.1986/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007