Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 16 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 6889 of 2007()


1. SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SURESH

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :16/11/2007

 O R D E R
                            R. BASANT, J.
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B.A.No. 6889 of 2007
                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007

                               O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations under Section 384 I.P.C. Petitioner is the drawing

teacher in a school, where the daughter of the defacto

complainant, a girl aged 13 years, is studying.

2. Cash and gold ornaments kept in the house of the

defacto complainant went on disappearing. The defacto

complainant made enquiries. She could not get any clue. She

found that some one was contacting her daughter frequently on

telephone. She wanted to ascertain the details. It was the

petitioner, who was calling the daughter of the defacto

complainant. He disconnected the phone when he found that the

defacto complainant had taken the phone. The defacto

complainant contacted her brother. He came and interrogated

the child. The child then gave startling information. The girl

narrated that she had taken away gold ornaments as well as cash

B.A.No. 6889 of 2007
2

for handing over to the petitioner. The petitioner threatened the child

that he will ensure that she will be sent out of the school on the

allegation that another boy of the school was in love with her and he

had purchased some gold ornaments for her. Employing such threat

he was using the child to take away the articles from the house. The

mother went to the school and complained to the authorities. The

petitioner, thereafter, is making himself scarce. He was not available

for arrest and interrogation. Investigation is in progress. The

petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. False allegations are being raised

against the petitioner. In these circumstances he, a teacher, may now

be granted anticipatory bail, submits the counsel.

4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits

that the materials collected so far clearly indicate the complicity of the

petitioner. There is no worthwhile allegation of malafides also. There

is no reason now to suspect the version of the defacto complainant and

her daughter. At any rate, the petitioner does not deserve to be armed

B.A.No. 6889 of 2007
3

with an order of anticipatory bail, before he is interrogated by the

police. Attempt must be made to trace the stolen articles. In any view

of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this

stage, submits the Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel, in reply, submits that the status of the

petitioner as a teacher may not be lost sight of. He shall lose his

employment. The status and prestige of the petitioner is likely to be

brought down in the assessment of students. In these circumstances

the petitioner may not be subjected to the trauma of arrest and

detention, submits the counsel.

6. The case diary has been perused. I have gone through the

statements of the defacto complainant and her daughter. I shall

carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the

acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data

collected. Suffice it to say that, 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. The status of the petitioner as a

teacher, which he is alleged to have abused, cannot certainly entitle

B.A.No. 6889 of 2007
4

him to grant of anticipatory bail. 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.

5. This application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say,

if the petitioner appears before the Investigating Officer or the learned

Magistrate having jurisdiction and applies 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