Judgment · High Court · 2008

B.A.No.2245 of 200823.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe petitioners are totally innocent. On account of prior animositysuch false allegations are being raised against the petitioners. Infact, in an incident that took place at a different spot, thepetitioners had only attempted to pacify the quarreling group. False and vexatious allegations are being raised now because ofthe earlier animosity. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is nomerit in these contentions raised by the learned counsel for thepetitioners. Absolutely no indications are available to suggestthat the allegations are being raised against the petitioners withmala fide or vexatious intent. 3 persons had suffered injuries. There was a prompt F.I statement also. All available indicationssuggest that the petitioners do not deserve to be grantedanticipatory bail now, prays the learned Public Prosecutor .5.Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find meritin the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I am unableto perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrantthe invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned PublicProsecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must appear before B.A.No.2245 of 20083the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate havingjurisdiction and then seek regular bail. 6. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrenderbefore the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate andapply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutorin charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed topass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. (R.BASANT, JUDGE)rtr/-