IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 10TH APRIL 2008 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2245 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.166/08 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. MOORIYAN PAVITHRAN,S/O. UMBOOTTY, KUNNATH VEEDU, MANAKAYI, KAYANI PO, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. VINCENT,S/O. APPU BIJU NIVAS, MANAKKAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RTHE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MATTANNUR POLICE STATION 2. STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2245 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2. Altogether there are 5 accused persons - 2 named and the others not named. They face allegations in a crime registered of offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. That is the only non bailable offence alleged in the crime. 2. Earlier there was another incident in which the brother in law of the 1st petitioner was the accused. He had allegedly attempted to snatch away the gold chain of one Nazira. The defacto complainant herein and another had chased the brother in law of the 1st petitioner and had apprehended him. A crime was registered against the brother in law of the 1st accused. On account of such animosity, it is alleged that the petitioners herein along with co-accused armed with dangerous weapons went to the house of the defacto complainant and unleashed an attack on them with dangerous weapons. 3 persons had suffered injuries. Injuries cannot be said to be grievous. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. B.A.No.2245 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are totally innocent. On account of prior animosity such false allegations are being raised against the petitioners. In fact, in an incident that took place at a different spot, the petitioners had only attempted to pacify the quarreling group. False and vexatious allegations are being raised now because of the earlier animosity. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no merit in these contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Absolutely no indications are available to suggest that the allegations are being raised against the petitioners with mala fide or vexatious intent. 3 persons had suffered injuries. There was a prompt F.I statement also. All available indications suggest that the petitioners do not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail now, prays the learned Public Prosecutor . 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant 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 petitioners must appear before B.A.No.2245 of 2008 3 the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 6. 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/-