IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 7344 of 2007()
1. SUDHEER K., S/O KAMARUDDIN,
... Petitioner
2. PRAKASH KUTTAN, S/O KUTTAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.BABU THOMAS
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 7344 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered for offences punishable,
inter alia, under Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act. The crux of the
allegations is that a procession raising protect against the police
was proceeding. That procession was dispersed. Thereafter two
persons from that procession allegedly caused destruction of a
K.S.R.T.C. bus, which had come that way at the relevant time.
Specific act of mischief was committed and damage was caused
to the bus by those persons. The driver of the bus made
enquiries and ascertained the names of those two persons, who
indulged in the act. He went to the police station and made a
complaint. In the complaint he had ascertained the miscreants.
Such persons were shown as accused 1 and 2 in the F.I.R. The
learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are
B.A.No. 7344 of 2007
2
absolutely innocent. It is prayed that directions under Section 438
Cr.P.C. may be issued in favour of the petitioners.
2. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that there is absolutely no reason as to why the prompt statement of
the driver of the bus should be disbelieved or discarded at this stage.
At any rate, this is not a fit case where the extra ordinary equitable
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked in
favour of the petitioners, submits the Prosecutor.
3. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I do not find any features in
this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary
equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No specific motive is
alleged as to why the statement of the driver about his efforts to
ascertain the identity of the miscreants should be discarded. This I am
satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners must 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.
B.A.No. 7344 of 2007
3
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say,
if the petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction and apply 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