Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6980 of 2007()


1. PRAKASH, S/O.APPU, AGED 32,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. APPU, S/O.VAREED, AGED 62,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :19/11/2007

 O R D E R
                                R.BASANT, J.
                             ----------------------
                           B.A.No.6980 of 2007
                       ----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 19th day of November 2007

                                  O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1

and 2. Altogether there are four accused persons. Third accused has

been arrested and granted bail. Fourth accused is still absconding.

The petitioner’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the

learned Sessions Judge.

2. The alleged incident took place on 7/10/2007. The crux of

the allegations against the petitioners is that they had gone to a bar

in the morning and there was some quarrel and dispute. Later in the

evening, the petitioners, along with the co-accused, allegedly

trespassed into the bar and indulged in wanton acts of violence and

mischief. Crime was registered. The petitioners are named in the

F.I.R. Scene mahazer shows that damage was caused to the bar.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent

arrest.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are absolutely innocent. The petitioners are not the

aggressors but only the victims of aggression. They had gone to the

Bar. They were assaulted and injuries were caused to them. False

and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioners, it is

submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

first petitioner has suffered head injury as a result of the said attack.

B.A.No.6980/07 2

4. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The

learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. No complaint has

so far been raised of any injury suffered by any of the accused. In any

view of the matter, this is not a fit case where the extraordinary

equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be

invoked. The petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail,

submits the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. 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.

6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if

the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the

learned Magistrate and applies 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.6980/07    3

B.A.No.6980/07    4

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007