IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2007 of 2008()
1. NARAYANAN BHANU,PUTHUVALIL VEEDU
... Petitioner
2. LEELA
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
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. 2007 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners 1 and 2
are a couple – husband and wife. They apprehend arrest as
accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter
alia, under Sections 308 and 324 I.P.C.
2. The learned Prosecutor at the outset submits that the
first petitioner is not an accused in that crime and only the second
petitioner is the accused in the crime. She is the sole accused.
On 14.3.2008 she is alleged to have inflicted three serious incised
injuries with a sickle on the defacto complainant, a woman. The
alleged motive referred to in the F.I. Statement is the conduct of
the defacto complainant throwing stones at a pet dog. But the
case of the prosecution is that the real motive is not that. There
was an allegation that the defacto complainant is having illicit
intimacy with the first petitioner and that allegedly had prompted
the second petitioner to indulge in such culpable conduct against
B.A.No. 2007 of 2008
2
the defacto complainant. However, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has yet another story about the motive. According to him,
the daughter of the second petitioner was indecently assaulted by the
son of the defacto complainant. To cover up the fault of the son of the
defacto complainant in that incident, totally false and frivolous
allegations are being raised by the defacto complainant against the
second petitioner herein. In these circumstances it is prayed that
anticipatory bail may be granted to the second petitioner.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the investigation revealed that the real motive has not been stated
in detail in the F.I. Statement. But in the nature of the motive, there is
nothing artificial if the defacto complainant does not want to make a
clean breast of the nature of the motive in a voluntary statement given
by her. The learned Prosecutor submits that the injuries described in
the wound certificate are telltale indications of the nature of the motive
entertained by the assailant against the defacto complainant.
4. I have been taken through the details of the three incised
injuries suffered by the defacto complainant. Having considered all the
B.A.No. 2007 of 2008
3
relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any 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 second 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.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the second 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