High Court Kerala High Court

Unnikrishnan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 2 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Unnikrishnan vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 2 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2709 of 2008()


1. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.ACHUTHAN,PALLATHUKUDY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THILAKAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, THOTTATHIL

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.P.JACOB

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :02/05/2008

 O R D E R
                               R.BASANT, J
                       ------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.2709 of 2008
                       -------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008

                                   ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations

in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia,

under Section 353 I.P.C. The petitioners had allegedly deterred

two police constables, who allegedly went to them in connection

with their official duty. The petitioners take the stand that they

did not know that the visitors were police officials. Objections

were raised against the alleged improper conduct of the said

persons, who it is now realised were police officials. The learned

Public Prosecutor submits that it is the case of the police officials

that identity cards were shown to the petitioners and there was

no possibility of any genuine or bona fide doubt about the identity

of the victims. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that in any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to

endure the trauma of arrest and detention. The victims have not

suffered any injuries whatsoever. It was, even if it is accepted, a

bona fide indiscretion because the petitioners were unable to

know that the alleged victims were police officials. They may be

granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the

said prayer and I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be

B.A.No.2709 of 2008 2

granted to the petitioners subject of course to appropriate terms

and conditions.

3. In the result, the Bail Application is, allowed. The

following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

i) The petitioners shall appear before the learned

Magistrate at 11 a.m on 09.05.2008. They shall be enlarged on

regular bail on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twenty Five thousand only) 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 10.05.2008 and 11.05.08 and thereafter on all Mondays

between 10 a.m and 3 p.m for a period of one month.

Subsequently the petitioners shall make themselves available for

interrogation before 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 those directions were not issued at all;

iv) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender

on 09.05.08 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be

released from custody on their executing bonds for Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each without any sureties

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 09.05.08.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-

B.A.No.2709 of 2008 3