High Court Kerala High Court

R.Rajan vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Director on 8 April, 2008

Kerala High Court
R.Rajan vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Director on 8 April, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 2111 of 2008()


1. R.RAJAN, S/O.JOHN JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. BIJU RAJ, S/O.R.RAJAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY DIRECTOR
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :08/04/2008

 O R D E R
                          R. BASANT, J.

           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                   B.A. No. 2111 OF 2008 B
           ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
             Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008

                             O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are

accused 1 and 2. They are father and son. Altogether there

are only two accused persons. They are both named in the

FIR. The alleged incident took place on 1.3.08. There are

two injured persons, one of them had suffered fracture of the

frontal bone. Sickle is the weapon used. Prior animosity is

the alleged motive. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They were not

aggressors but were victims of aggression. The 1st accused

had suffered some injuries and he was hospitalised also.

False and vexatious allegations have been raised against the

petitioners to cover the fault and the contumacious conduct of

BA.2111/08
: 2 :

the de facto complainant/injured. In any view of the matter,

the petitioners may not be compelled to endure the trauma of

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

is prayed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the

application. The learned Public Prosecutor has taken me

through all the relevant data. Wound certificate has been read

over to me. The relevant portion of the FIR has also been

brought to my notice.

4. 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 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 in the

normal and ordinary course.

BA.2111/08
: 3 :

5. 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)
aks