IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1939 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.80/08 OF BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 11 ------------------------ 1. MAHIN,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O. HASSAN MENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAYANTIKKARA, MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 2. SUNDARAN, AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.THANKACHAN THANDEERIKKAL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 3. BABU,AGED 37 YEARS,S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI MANGALATH HOUSE, EDAYAR, KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE 4. SAKKIR, AGED 34 YEARS,S/O. IBRAHIM PUTHUVELIPARAMBIL, THANDIRIKKAL, MUPPATHADAM KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 5. NAJEEB,AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN,THANDIRIKKAL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 6. SUDHEESH,AGED 33,S/O.BALAN, THANDIRIKKAL HOUSE,MUPPATHADAM KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 7. BALU, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.KUNJUMON MARIPADATH HOUSE,THANDIRIKKAL,MUPPATHADAM . 8. SUNIL, AGED 38,S/O.THANKAPPAN THANDIRIKKAL,MUPPATHADAM . 9. ANOOB,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O. CHANDRAN THANDIRIKKAL,MUPPATHADAM . 10. TITUS,AGED 24, SPO,CLEETUS, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. 11. SARATH KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SASI, VALAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANDIRIKKAL,MUPPATHADAM, KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: ------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1939 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 11. On account of prior animosity, they were members of an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons and in prosecution of their common object allegedly attacked the victim causing grievous injuries including fracture of the parietal bone. The alleged incident took place on 02.03.08. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor points out that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no features available in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners B.A.No.1939 of 2008 2 must appear 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/-