IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2124 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.15/2008 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ----------------------------------------- K.S. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 30, KOCHIKARAN, ENGANDIYUR,CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANILKUMAR SMT.PRASEEDHA.K.DAS SMT.J.RAJI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 2124 OF 2008 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Altogether there are four accused persons. Two are named. Other two are not named. The petitioner is one of the two named in the FIR. The crux of the allegations is that on account of prior animosity, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked the de facto complainant with iron rods resulting in fracture of both tibia of the victim. Crime has been registered, inter alia, under section 326 read with 34 IPC. The incident took place on 4.1.08. FI Statement was lodged on 5.1.08. Investigation is not complete. Final report has not been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It is prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. BA.2124/08 : 2 : 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. The crime took place on 4.1.08. FIR was promptly lodged on 5.1.08. Considering the totality of circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 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 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 petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer BA.2124/08 : 3 : 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