IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1512 of 2008()
1. SABARI, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU, S/O.AZHAKAPPAN ASARI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.GOPU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1512 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners face allegations
in a crime registered alleging offences punishable under Section
456 I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The alleged incident
took place on 22.02.08 at about 1 a.m. On account of prior
animosity which arose allegedly because the defacto complainant
had lodged an earlier complaint before the police about the
assault on his son, the petitioners along with others formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and allegedly attacked the
house of the defacto complainant. The house was damaged. The
miscreants were armed with dangerous weapons. The defacto
complainant and his family members were allegedly threatened
also. The crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent. The defacto complainant has
influence with the police. He being a taxi driver and his taxi being
engaged by police officials for their trip, making use of such
influence which the defacto complainant has, crimes are
registered without any justification against the petitioners. The
B.A.No.1512 of 2008 2
petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and
detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available
indications do clinchingly show the complicity of the petitioners.
The learned Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the
scene mahazar which bears telltale indications of the alleged
attack on the house.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable
to perceive any features in this case that can justify or warrant
the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the
petitioners must appear before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
apply 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/-
B.A.No.1512 of 2008 3