IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5832 of 2007()
1. SHANTHI T.V., AGED 38 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/09/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
B.A.No.5832 of 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations
of having committed offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 468
IPC. The de facto complainant allegedly wanted her licence for running
a tea shop to be renewed. The Panchayath had allegedly raised some
objection. The de facto complainant allegedly approached the
petitioner, a member of the Panchayath, for her help to get the licence
renewed. The petitioner allegedly took a huge amount of money from
the de facto complainant and promised to do the needful. A renewed
licence was made available to the de facto complainant. The
Panchayath member of the local ward, happened to see the said
renewed licence. He entertained doubts and verified. It was revealed
that the licence was a forged one. The petitioner had allegedly forged
the said licence. The complaint was filed by the de facto complainant
before the Director General of Police. The same was forwarded to the
local Police. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner has political rivals
B.A.No. 5832 of 2007 2
who are inimical to the petitioner and false allegations are being raised
against the petitioner. It is prayed that the petitioner may be spared
of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that sufficient indications pointing to
the complicity of the petitioner have, by now, been collected by the
Investigators. There is absolutely no reason of doubt or suspect the
version of the de facto complainant now. Political animosity alleged is
without any basis. It has nothing to do with the present crime into
which the investigation is being conducted. There is absolutely no
circumstance justifying invocation of the extraordinary equitable
discretion under Section 438, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned
Magistrate or the Investigating Officer and seek regular bail in the
ordinary course, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned
Public Prosecutor submits that though the crime was initially registered
as Crime No.413/2007 of Peerorkada Police Station, the same is now
being investigated after transfer by Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and
the Crime No. is 289/2007.
4. I have perused the case diary. Having considered all the
relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
B.A.No. 5832 of 2007 3
Prosecutor. I find no features in this case suggesting the need for
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438
Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case
where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or
learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary and normal
course.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if
the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer or the learned
Magistrate and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the
Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate
orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
sj
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE