IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 925 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.218/2007 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION : APPLICANTS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH K. @ MANIVARNAN, S/O.KUCHELAN, CHARUNINNA ARAPPURA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. 2. UNNI, S/O.VIJAYAN, CHARUNINNAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPPURAM P.O. NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.925 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1, and 2. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Allegation under Section 326 I.P.C has also been included on the basis of the later disclosure that the skull bone of the victim has suffered fracture. The alleged incident took place on 10.12.07. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Accused 3, 4 and 5 had come to this Court earlier seeking anticipatory bail and by order dated 16.01.08 in B.A.No.226 of 2008, their petition was dismissed. They have subsequently surrendered and have been promptly released on bail, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, ie. accused 1 and 2, are absolutely innocent. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have adverted to facts in detail in the earlier order. This order B.A.No.925 of 2008 2 must be read in continuation of the said order. Hence I am not adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 4. For the same reasons on which anticipatory bail was refused to the co-accused, I am satisfied that the petitioners herein are not also entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that 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 and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-