IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2105 of 2008()
1. SHINU, AGED 24,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :04/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 2105 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first
accused. Altogether there are three accused persons arrayed as
accused now. In the F.I. Statement all the three accused are
named. Of course there is an allegation that there were two
identifiable persons also along with the three accused persons.
But in the course of investigation that aspect of the case has been
found to be not correct. Now only three accused persons are
there. The allegations raised include the allegation under the
Arms Act. The accused persons, armed with dangerous weapons,
allegedly attacked the defacto complainant, a person aged 20
years. Motive for that attack was prior animosity. The incident
took place on 27.12.2007. Iron pipes and sword are the weapons
used. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and that at any rate the petitioner does not
B.A.No. 2105 of 2008
2
deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He is alleged to
have wielded an iron pipe, a dangerous arm. Only one injury is seen
suffered by the victim. The learned counsel prays that the petitioner
may be granted anticipatory bail.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that there are no circumstances to warrant a conclusion that the
allegations are not true or are made vexatiously. In any view of the
matter, the learned Prosecutor submits that the petitioner does not
deserve the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find 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
petitioner. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner 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 usual course.
B.A.No. 2105 of 2008
3
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and
expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm