IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3717 of 2007()
1. SUDHILAL, AGED 53,
... Petitioner
2. NOUSHAD, AGED 40,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3717 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 3 and
4 and they face allegations under Sections 324 and 452 I.P.C. The
crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that on account of
animosity arising out of a property dispute between the 1st accused
and the defacto complainant, the 1st accused along with mercenaries
allegedly attacked the defacto complainant trespassing into the house
of the defacto complainant and attacked with dangerous weapons
resulting in serious injuries to the victim. Damage was caused to the
household articles also. The alleged incident took place on
19.04.2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend
imminent arrest. They along with the 2nd accused had applied for
anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge had granted
anticipatory bail to the 2nd accused only. The petitioners’ prayer for
anticipatory bail was rejected.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent and are entitled for anticipatory
bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the 2nd
accused having been granted anticipatory bail on the ground that
there is uncertainity and dissatisfaction about his alleged presence at
B.A.No.3717 of 2007 2
the scene of the crime, the petitioners should not have been denied
the benefit or advantage arising from that circumstance.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The allegations are serious. The wound certificate reveals very
serious injuries suffered by the victim. In these circumstances, there
is no circumstance to justify the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Recovery of the weapons will have to be effected. In these
circumstances, this application may be dismissed, prays the learned
Public Prosecutor .
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor . This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner
must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the
Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary
course.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the
learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer 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-on the date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-