IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3546 of 2007(M)
1. MANOJ MANI M.A., AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/07/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 3546 OF 2007
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations, inter alia, under Sec.308, 452 and 324 of the IPC.
Investigation is now complete. Final report has already been
filed. The petitioner apprehends arrest now in execution of a
non-bailable warrant of arrest issued by the learned
Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation
under Sec.308 of the IPC has been unnecessarily included only
to ensure that the petitioner is detained in custody for as long
a period as possible. In fact, cognizance was taken initially
for offences triable by a Magistrate. But it has now been
allegedly realised that the final report makes an allegation
under Sec.308 of the IPC also. The case numbered as C.C. now
has been re-numbered as C.P.
B.A. NO. 3546 OF 2007 -: 2 :-
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
injury suffered is simple. The allegation under Sec.308 of the
IPC has been included with the transparent purpose of vexation
and harassment. Only to ensure that the petitioner will not get
bail from the learned Magistrate, such an allegation has been
included. In these circumstances, it is submitted that relying on
the decision in Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of
Bihar – AIR 2003 SC 4662 anticipatory bail may be granted to
the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor does not seriously oppose
the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
investigation is now complete. Subject to appropriate conditions
the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. Custodial
interrogation is not necessary now.
4. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that directions
under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued in favour of the
petitioner. Notwithstanding the fact that the final report has
been filed, the inclusion of the offence under Sec.308 of the IPC
B.A. NO. 3546 OF 2007 -: 3 :-
subsequently does persuade me to take that view. Appropriate
directions can, of course, be issued in the interests of a fair and
exhaustive investigation.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following
directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 23/7/07. He shall
be released on regular bail on his executing a bond for
Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(ii) The petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. on 24/7/07 and thereafter as and when directed by
the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.
(iii) 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
B.A. NO. 3546 OF 2007 -: 4 :-
if those directions were not issued at all;
(iv) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender
on 23/7/07 as directed in clause (i) above, he shall be released on
his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any sureties
undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 23/7/07.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
B.A. NO. 3546 OF 2007 -: 5 :-