IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1959 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 110/08 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : SOLE ACCUSED ----------------------------- ANTONY, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE JUSSA MANAKKIL HOUSE, GOTHURUTHU KARA CHENDAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER VADAKARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1959 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered initially under Sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that because of an earlier dispute between the defacto complainant's son and the petitioner regarding parking of a motor cycle, the defacto complainant in an inebriated condition trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted the defacto complainant. Injuries were also caused on an infant child aged less than one year. The defacto complainant has suffered a fracture. No weapon is admittedly used for the commission of the offence. The alleged incident took place on 19.2.2008 at about 9 p.m. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He is a person having B.A.No. 1959 of 2008 2 psychiatric problems. In any view of the matter, offences under sections 452 and 308 I.P.C. would not lie at all. Allegation under Section 452 I.P.C. has later been altered to one under Section 451 I.P.C. In these circumstances it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there is absolutely no justification in the prayer to invoke the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had trespassed into the peace of a home when the lady along with the child alone were in the house in the night at 9 p.m. Wanton acts of mischief were perpetrated. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or 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 merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. Considering the nature of the allegations and the nature of injuries, including the fracture suffered by the defacto complainant and the child, I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner needs to be permitted to be armed with an order of B.A.No. 1959 of 2008 3 anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that he 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 and normal 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 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