IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 305 of 2008()
1. SHIBU, S/O RAVI,
... Petitioner
2. SYAM RAJ, S/O KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI,
3. VIJAYA KUMAR @ BIJU PILLAI,
4. SAJU, S/O RAJU,
5. RAJU, S/O KANNAN,
6. RAJENDRAN, S/O KANNAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 305 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 to 6. Altogether, there are 6 accused persons. The
alleged incident took place on 25/11/07. The injured/the de
facto complainant, was immediately taken to the Doctor and to
the Doctor it is alleged that the injuries were suffered when he
was attacked with sticks. The assailants are not named in the
wound certificate. Long later, on 13/12/07 the First
Information Statement is lodged raising allegations against six
specified persons i.e., the petitioners herein. The delay is
sought to be explained with the reason that there was a talk of
settlement which did not fructify. All the petitioners are
named in the F.I.R. The alleged motive is some incident which
had taken place about a year back. Investigation is in
B.A. No. 305 OF 2008 -: 2 :-
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
convenient allegations have been raised belatedly against the
petitioners. No incident, as alleged, had taken place. On
account of political animosity, the petitioners are being arrayed
as accused without any justification. The petitioners may, in
these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail. The wound
certificate clearly shows that the de facto complainant had
consumed alcohol when he was taken to the hospital after the
incident, points out the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the delay in lodging
the F.I.R. cannot be reckoned as a sufficient reason to warrant
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners may be directed to
surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in
the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I take note of
the fact that there is gross and long unexplained delay in the
filing of the F.I.R. The reason urged that there was an attempted
settlement does not at the moment carry conviction. The
contention of the petitioners that they have been conveniently
B.A. No. 305 OF 2008 -: 3 :-
brought into array of the accused while there was no allegations
whatsoever against them for more than 15 days after the
incident does appeal to me. I am satisfied that anticipatory bail
can be granted to the petitioners after safeguarding the interests
of a proper investigation by imposing appropriate conditions.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. Following
directions are issued under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of
the petitioners:
(i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m. on 29/1/08. They shall
be released on regular bail on their executing bonds for
Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(ii) The petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m.
and 3 p.m. on 30/1/08 and 31/1/08. During this period the
Investigator shall be at liberty interrogate the petitioners in
custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of
the investigation. Thereafter the petitioners shall appear before
the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between
10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month. Subsequently,
they shall so make themselves available for interrogation before
B.A. No. 305 OF 2008 -: 4 :-
the Investigating Officer as and when directed by the
Investigating Officer in writing to do so.
(iii) If the petitioners do 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 petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law
as if these directions were not issued at all;
(iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender
on 29/1/08 as directed in clause (i) above, they shall be released
on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- each without any
sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on
29/1/08.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
B.A. No. 305 OF 2008 -: 5 :-