IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7977 of 2007()
1. RAMESH, S/O VARGHESE, 19 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. KOCHU RAJAN, S/O THAMPI, 36 YEARS,
3. RAJAN, S/O VARGHESE, 20 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.GEETHA JOB(OZHUKAYIL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7977 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 2, 4 and 5. It is submitted that the 4th accused has
expired after the filing of this petition. Accused 2 and 5 face
allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sections 308 and 324 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The alleged
incident took place on 10.10.2007. Knife and chopper were the
weapons used. Two persons had suffered injuries. One of them
had suffered injuries with a sharp edged weapon. It is alleged
that the defacto complainant’s mother had earlier on that day
filed a complaint against the accused persons. Infuriated by
such conduct, the accused persons allegedly attacked the defacto
complainant and providentially he escaped from serious injures.
Investigation is in progress. All accused persons have been
named in the F.I.R. They apprehend imminent arrest.
B.A.No. 7977 of 2007
2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent. A false complaint was filed by the mother of
the defacto complainant against the accused on that morning, but that
did not succeed in generating any action against the petitioners by the
police. Because of that self inflicted injuries were caused and false
complaint was filed against the petitioners, it is submitted.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He has read
over to me the nature of injuries suffered and the nature of the
allegations raised. He submits that there are no features in this case,
which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable
discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners.
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 resort to
the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator
or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail
in the ordinary course.
B.A.No. 7977 of 2007
3
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