IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2192 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 234/08 OF EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM CRMP.749/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER : 5TH ACCUSED ---------------------------- DINESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN DIVYA BHAVAN, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 2192 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 4th accused. Altogether there are five accused persons. All of them are named in the F.I.R. The alleged incident took place on 23.2.2008 at about 11 p.m. Allegations are raised alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 326 r/w. 149 I.P.C. Sword is the alleged weapon used. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. The victim has suffered serious injuries, including a fracture. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. False and vexatious allegations are raised against him. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the case diary shows that trespass had taken place and the victim had suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or B.A.No. 2192 of 2008 2 the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find no features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. The theory advanced that there is animosity between accused 1 and 2 is not supported or rendered probable by any materials available. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) tm Judge