Venugopalan vs State – Represented By on 8 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4802 of 2007()


1. VENUGOPALAN, S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JOJI, S/O. JOY,

                        Vs



1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/08/2007

 O R D E R
                          R.BASANT, J.
                       ----------------------
                       B.A.No.4802 of 2007
                   ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 8th day of August 2007


                              O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C. The crux of

the allegations is that on 19/7/2007 at about 6 p.m, the

petitioners attacked the de facto complainant with dangerous

weapons on account of prior animosity. The prior animosity

allegedly arose out of an impression/feeling of the de facto

complainant that the petitioners had insulted him by making

allegations of theft against the first petitioner. The de facto

complainant suffered serious fracture, that is fracture of bones

of the legs. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners have

been named in the F.I.R. The petitioners apprehend imminent

arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The de facto

complainant has a shady past. He has many persons enemical

towards him. He must have suffered the injury in some other

B.A.No.4802/07

manner and is at present making false allegations against the

petitioners. In these circumstances, directions under Section

438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioners, it is

prayed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. All the available indications satisfactorily point to an

inference of guilt against the petitioners. The theory advanced

that the allegations are being vexatiously raised against them

because of prior animosity, is without any basis. The petitioners

may be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal procedure

of appearing before the investigating officer or the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek bail, submits the

learned Public Prosecutor. I find merit in the opposition by the

learned Public Prosecutor. The nature of injuries have been

brought to my notice. The fact that the petitioners have been

arrayed as accused in the F.I.R itself has also been considered by

me. Suffice it to say that I do not find any features in this case

which would justify the invocation of discretion under Section

438 Cr.P.C. I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that this

is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the

B.A.No.4802/07

learned Magistrate or the investigating officer and seek regular

bail in the normal and ordinary course.

3. 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.4802/07

B.A.No.4802/07

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007