High Court Kerala High Court

Aniyan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 19 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Aniyan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 19 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1679 of 2008()


1. ANIYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KAVALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BABU, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.AMMINI,
3. CHANDRAN AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KAVALAN,

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/03/2008

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     B.A.No. 1679 of 2008
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008

                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are

accused 1 to 3. They are named in the F.I.R. There are six other

accused also. The alleged incident took place at 7.30 p.m. on

8.2.2008. The petitioners face allegations in a crime registered

for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w. 149

I.P.C. Fracture of the mandible is the injury suffered.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent

arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are innocent. There is some dispute between the

persons of the locality about the drawal of water from a public

tap. The incident occurred in connection with that dispute.

There are allegations and counter allegations raised. In any view

of the matter the petitioners do not deserve to suffer the trauma

of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it

is prayed.

B.A.No. 1679 of 2008
2

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits

that the available inputs reveal the complicity of the petitioners. There

are no circumstances justifying or warranting invocation of the

discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners.

They may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or

the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course,

submits the learned Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the

opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned

Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must be directed

to surrender before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having

jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual and ordinary course.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and

expeditiously.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm