IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3482 of 2007(K)
1. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.LATE SIVASANKARAN NAIR
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :27/06/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 3482 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations under Section 120B and 302 I.P.C. Altogether there are
14 accused persons. The petitioner is the 9th accused. The crux of
the allegations is that the petitioner was greatly aggrieved by the
conduct of the deceased, who allegedly murdered his father and
mother. The petitioner is a person employed abroad. He allegedly,
before he left India, made arrangements for the liquidation of the
deceased. He met persons, who were willing to accomplish the task
on his behalf for consideration. He allegedly advanced certain
amounts to such person. In furtherance of that conspiracy the
accused, who are available in India, in the absence of the petitioner,
implemented the project of the conspiracy on 21.12.2006.
Investigation is in progress. Some of the co-accused have been
arrested. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
deceased was a person against whom many had animus. It would be
B.A.No. 3482 of 2007
2
idle to assume that the petitioner had any role in the crime merely because
he has also a grouse against the deceased. In these circumstance the mere
existence of motive should not persuade the court to come to any
conclusion against the petitioner. There is no satisfactory data to establish
any nexus for the petitioner with the crime of murder. In these
circumstances it is prayed that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory
bail.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that
sufficient materials have been collected by now to indicate that the
petitioner had played a leading role in the conspiracy to eliminate the
accused, against whom he had bitter animosity and motive. In these
circumstances the learned Prosecutor submits that it would be inexpedient,
unnecessary and unjust to permit the petitioner to arm with an order of
anticipatory bail at this stage. The petitioner has to be interrogated and
arrested, if necessary. Such arrest and interrogation is absolutely necessary
for proper resolution of the crime committed. Allowing the petitioner to
remain on bail even before he is interrogated and arrested, if necessary,
would hamper the smooth course of investigation, submits the Prosecutor.
B.A.No. 3482 of 2007
3
4. I find merit in the opposition raised by the learned Prosecutor.
Powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are not to be invoked as a matter of
course. An order of anticipatory bail virtually converts a non-bailable
offence under law to a bailable offence. Compelling reasons must be shown
to exist for the superior courts – Sessions Court and High Court – to invoke
such powers. Even the fact that the petitioner may be entitled for regular
bail when he approaches the court after arrest is no reason by itself to justify
the invocation of such powers. I am certainly of the opinion that the police
must be given sufficient opportunity to complete the investigation in a
proper and efficient manner without placing any fetter on their powers to
arrest and interrogate the petitioner.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. It is for the petitioner
to appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
resort to the ordinary and normal course available to him under law to seek
regular bail.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm