High Court Kerala High Court

Anu S.Nair vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 14 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
Anu S.Nair vs The Circle Inspector Of Police on 14 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 4788 of 2007()


1. ANU S.NAIR, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RENJITH @ KANNAN, AGED 23 YEARS,
3. SURENDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SALIM V.S.

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :14/08/2007

 O R D E R
                           R.BASANT, J.
                        ----------------------
                        B.A.No.4788 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------------
             Dated this the 14th day of August 2007

                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are

accused 1,3 and 4. Altogether there are five accused persons.

Accused 2 has already been arrested. The crux of the allegations

against the accused persons is that on the night of 14/6/2007 at

about 10.30 p.m, the accused persons, who travelled in a car

attempted to rashly overtake a two wheeler in which the de facto

complainant was travelling. There was a quarrel. Police patrol

party who came that way were informed the incident. The police

party tried to settle the disputes. After the police party left, the

de facto complainant had gone to a ‘thattukada’. There the

accused persons allegedly reached and indulged in the culpable

overt acts. The de facto complainant was wrongfully restrained

assaulted and the gold chain belonging to him was thieved. F.I.R

about this incident was lodged only on the next morning. The de

facto complainant did not know the names and details of the

accused persons. Hence no one is named in the F.I.R.

Subsequent investigation revealed the identity of the miscreants

to the police. Accused 2 has been arrested. Petitioners are

wanted to be arrested. They apprehend imminent arrest.

B.A.No.4788/07 2

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

all the allegations are totally false. According to him, the de

facto complainant and the accused are all close friends. They

together had gone on some picnic on that day. As they were

returning, there was a dispute about the gold chain of the de

facto complainant which was lost. On account of that quarrel,

totally false allegations have been raised against the petitioners

now. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may, in these

circumstances, be granted to the petitioners.

3. In the light of the contentions raised, the learned

Public Prosecutor was requested to take detailed instructions.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation has

revealed that there is no relationship whatsoever between the

accused persons and the de facto complainant. Investigation

revealed that the de facto complainant was not a friend or

relative of the accused persons and the de facto complainant did

not even know the names of the accused persons. Arrest and

interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely essential. The gold

chain which was thieved has not been recovered. A proper

investigation must make all efforts to recover the gold chain.

The petitioners may not be permitted to arm themselves with an

B.A.No.4788/07 3

order of anticipatory bail at this stage, submits the learned

Public Prosecutor.

4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. Having

considered all the relevant circumstances anxiously, I find merit

in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor.

Notwithstanding all claims made by the petitioners, there is

nothing tangible to indicate even the probability even remotely

of the claims made by the petitioners. I am certainly of the

opinion that this is not a fit case where directions under Section

438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be granted. 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.

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)

jsr
                      // True Copy//        PA to Judge

B.A.No.4788/07    4

B.A.No.4788/07    5

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007