IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl No. 697 of 2008() 1. HARIS, S/O. MUHAMMED, ... Petitioner 2. MARANGATTU NAZAR, S/O. KUNHEEN PILLA, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE ... Respondent 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :07/02/2008 O R D E R R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.697 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February 2008 O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 7 and 8. They face allegations in a crime registered
alleging offences punishable inter alia under Sections 307 and
326 read with 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on
27/11/2007. In prosecution of the common object of an unlawful
assembly of which the petitioners were members – there are
altogether 19 persons – they armed with dangerous weapons like
swords, iron rods etc. attacked the de facto complainant and
three others. Serious injuries were inflicted on the victims
including fractures. Investigation is in progress. Final report
has not been filed. Some of the co-accused who had been
arrested, had been enlarged on bail as per common order of this
court dated 08/01/2008. The petitioners have not been arrested.
They apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the
petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Public
Prosecutor opposes the application and submits that no
circumstances exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary
equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3. 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. The mere fact that some of the co-accused have
been granted regular bail is no reason to justify the claim of the
petitioners for anticipatory bail.
4. 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.697/08 3 B.A.No.697/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007