IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 8086 of 2007()
1. NISHAD, AGED 26,
... Petitioner
2. MUKUNDAN, AGED 34 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. S.I. OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.8086 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1
and 2 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia,
under Sections 324 and 308 I.P.C. Altogether there are 3 accused
persons. The 3rd accused has already been arrested and released
on bail also. The allegation is that on account of prior animosity,
the accused persons, armed with stick and swordS, allegedly
attacked the defacto complainant and caused injuries to the
defacto complainant. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners
apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent. Exaggerated allegations are raised
falsely with the sole intention of vexing and harassing the
petitioners. The inclusion of the offence under Section 308 I.P.C
reveals the vexatious intent of the defacto complainant. In any
view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the
trauma of arrest and detention. The petitioners may now be
granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
B.A.No.8086 of 2007 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the nature
of injuries suffered which includes a lacerated injury on the scalp.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no
circumstances warranting or 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 agree with
the learned Public Prosecutor that this is an eminently fit case
where the petitioners must surrender before the learned
Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and then seek regular bail
in the ordinary course. I am unable to find any features in this
case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the discretion
under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
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/-
B.A.No.8086 of 2007 3