IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6092 of 2007()
1. SHIBU, S/O. SIVANKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERAKAM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :08/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6092 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd
accused. He faces allegations for offences punishable under Sections
457 and 394 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 17.9.05. The
crux of the allegations is that the accused went to the house of the
defacto complainant and snatched the gold chain worn by the defacto
complainant. The 1st accused is named in the F.I.R. The petitioner is
not named in the F.I.R. By report dated 19.09.05, the petitioner has
been arrayed as the 2nd accused. That report had reached the court on
30.09.05 as can be seen from Annexure-A2 produced by the
petitioner. The petitioner has not been arrested so far. The 1st
accused was arrested in another crime. His arrest was recorded in this
crime. He was interrogated. His interrogation confirmed the
complicity of the petitioner herein. The petitioner has not been
arrested so far. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He has not been arrested so far.
Admittedly attempts have been made to arrest the petitioner. The
petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
B.A.No.6092 of 2007 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the police have wanted to
arrest the petitioner from 19.09.07. He could not be arrested as he
was not available. Subsequent interrogation of the defacto
complainant and the interrogation of the 1st accused after arrest, have
confirmed the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner has to be
arrested and interrogated as the stolen property has not been
recovered yet. The petitioner will have to be exhaustively
interrogated to ascertain the truth. The petitioner may not, in these
circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned
Public Prosecutor .
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, to which I have
made brief reference already, I am not persuaded to agree that there
are any features in this case which would justify or warrant the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sections 438
Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case
where the petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer or
the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. He must co-operate with
the investigation. He must then seek regular bail in the ordinary
course.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I
B.A.No.6092 of 2007 3
may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the
Investigating Officer or 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 appropriate orders on
merits and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-