IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1851 of 2008()
1. GEORGE, THEKKUPARA, MOONGODU,
... Petitioner
2. MOSES, S/O.THOMAS,
3. ASOKAN, S/O.MUTHAYYAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1851 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 3,
5 and 6. Altogether there are 14 accused persons. Accused 1 to
4 are named in the F.I.R. Accused 2 and 4 have already been
arrested. Accused persons face allegations in a crime registered
alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307, 447
and 326 I.P.C. Allegations are raised under the Arms Act also.
There was a property dispute between the rival groups. The
accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly and had
unleashed an attack on the victim. Chopper, swords etc. were
used for commission of the offence. They allegedly trespassed
into the property of the defacto complainant and indulged in
wanton acts of violence and mischief. 3 persons suffered injuries
and one of them suffered a fracture also. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. Accused 5 and 6, ie.
petitioners 2 and 3 have not been named in the F.I.R. The
petitioners may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory
bail, it is prayed.
B.A.No.1851 of 2008 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public prosecutor submits that the allegations are
grave. The petitioners had embarked on deliberate culpable
conduct after prior design. There are no circumstances
whatsoever justifying or warranting the invocation of the
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The nature of injuries
suffered by the victim recorded in the wound certificate has been
read over to me.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not
persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which
can justify or warrant the 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 petitioners
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/-
B.A.No.1851 of 2008 3