IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2007 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7402 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 449/07 OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- VIDHYADHARAN P.K., PULLARAN IKORIYIL HOUSE, 31ST MILE, MYLATHODE, MUNDAKAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 7402 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 324 I.P.C. The petitioner, the sole accused, had allegedly trespassed into the house of a neighbour armed with dangerous weapons and having made preparations to commit the offence. In the course of the incident, he had wielded his weapon and caused injuries to one of the victims. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He had not gone to the house of the defacto complainant with any contumacious intention. There were certain disputes. For the settlement of that dispute the petitioner had gone to the house of the defacto complainant. B.A.No. 7402 of 2007 2 But unfortunately untoward incident took place there and false allegations are now raised against the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the victim had suffered an injury with a sharp weapon, though the injury is not serious. In any view of the matter, the complicity of the petitioner is evident from the materials collected, submit the Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to find any 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 be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 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 B.A.No. 7402 of 2007 3 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) Judge tm