IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6401 of 2007()
1. V. RIJESH, AGED 20 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/11/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6401 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations
under Section 307 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the
petitioner is that when he was proceeding on a motorcycle, a police
constable on duty wanted the petitioner, who was riding his two
wheeler against traffic rules, to stop. The petitioner allegedly sped
away. There was a pillion rider also. When the police man chased the
petitioner, the petitioner and the co-accused kicked on the front wheel
of the motorcycle and it over turned. The police rider fell from his bike
and suffered injuries. The number of the motorcycle was noted. The
miscreants could not be apprehended. The investigation has now
revealed that the petitioner was the person who was proceeding on
the motorcycle and who along with the co-accused had indulged in the
culpable acts. Interim direction was issued. The petitioner appeared
before the police. The petitioner has now been brought on the array
as an accused. Investigation is in progress.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent. His vehicle was not involved in the incident. He
was not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. By some
B.A.No.6401 of 2007 2
mistake, the number of his vehicle has been shown in the F.I.R. The
petitioner apprehends physical harm if he were to appear before the
police. In these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may
be granted to the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at a
very early stage. The number of the vehicle as also the identity of the
petitioner as the rider have been confirmed now. The petitioner has
to be arrested. He has to be interrogated. The identity of the co-
accused has to be ascertained. In these circumstances, the petitioner
may not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor. Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation.
It is submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable at the
moment to accept the contention of the petitioner that his vehicle was
not at all involved in the incident and the number shown in the F.I
statement is because of some error. I am also unable to accept the
contention that the petitioner was not the person who was riding the
vehicle. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find no reason
to discard the version of the victim/a police constable. I do not, in
B.A.No.6401 of 2007 3
these circumstances, find any reason to invoke the powers under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
5. But I take note of the submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends physical harm at the
hands of the police if he were to appear directly before the police, as
the victim/police constable suffered injuries in the incident. The
learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be
permitted to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular
bail. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am
satisfied that such a direction can be issued which will facilitate the
surrender of the petitioner before the learned Magistrate without and
before the police are able to take him in custody.
6. This bail application is, in these circumstances, allowed.
The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned
Magistrate at 11 a.m on 14.11.2007;
ii) The petitioner may on that day apply for regular bail after
giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case;
iii) The investigator shall also be at liberty to file appropriate
application if any necessary;
B.A.No.6401 of 2007 4
iv) All such applications shall be considered and expeditious
orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate. The petitioner shall
abide by such orders to be passed by the learned Magistrate;
v) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned
Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall
thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the
petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those
directions were not issued at all.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-