IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7706 of 2007()
1. SUJITH KRISHNA, AGED 32,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/12/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7706 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 4th
accused. Altogether there are 8 accused in the crime. All of
them are named in the F.I.R. They face allegations punishable,
inter alia, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 324 r/w.
149 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress. Accused 6 and 8 have
already been arrested. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. The crux of the allegations against the accused is that
they, on account of animosity which the 4th accused entertained
towards the defacto complainant, were members of an unlawful
assembly which proceeded to the place where the defacto
complainant was and unleashed an attack on him. Injuries were
suffered by him and his brother. Injuries by themselves are not
serious. The prosecution alleges that the accused were in
B.A.No. 7706 of 2007
2
possession of dangerous weapons offending the provisions of the Arms
Act.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. No specific overt act is alleged
against the petitioner. No serious injury has resulted also. In these
circumstances the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of
arrest and detention, submits the counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the crime alleged is serious and grave. On account of prior
animosity, the accused persons armed with dangerous weapons had
constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the
victim. The petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail now,
submits the learned Prosecutor.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. There are no features in this
case, which justify or warrant 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 petitioner must
B.A.No. 7706 of 2007
3
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 ordinary course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the 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