IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1391 of 2008()
1. SAJEEV, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. JYOTHISH, AGED 33 YEARS,
3. MANOJ, AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.C.MOHANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.1391 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of March 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1
to 3. Altogether there are 18 accused persons – three named
and fifteen others. The petitioners are the three accused
persons named in the F.I.R. The incident took place at 7.30 a.m
on 09/02/2008. The miscreants had allegedly trespassed into a
tea shop run by the victim and his brother. Both the de facto
complainant and his brother had suffered injuries. Personal
animosity is the alleged motive. Crime is being investigated for
offences punishable inter alia under Sections 326 and 452 read
with 149 I.P.C. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that
directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in their
favour. The petitioners are in noway responsible for the offence.
Because of prior animosity, false allegations have been raised
against them, it is submitted.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. He submits that all the available indications clearly
point to the culpability of the petitioners. There is no reason at
this stage to assume that the allegations are incorrect, false or
B.A.No.1391/08 2
raised vexatiously. In any view of the matter, there are no
circumstances justifying the invocation of the extraordinary
equitable discretion 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 am satisfied
that there are no features in this case which would justify
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 petitioner must appear before
the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and
ordinary course.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.1391/08 3
B.A.No.1391/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007