IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6152 of 2007()
1. A.DILSHAD, S/O.AMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.6152 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
seventh accused in a crime registered for offences punishable
inter alia under Sections 120B and 364 I.P.C. The first accused
allegedly had disputes with the de facto complainant. He had
entered into a conspiracy along with others including the
petitioner herein. The de facto complainant was allegedly taken
away in an attempt to coerce him to part with money. I have
considered facts in detail in the application for regular bail filed
by some of the co-accused. The petitioner is alleged to be one of
the conspirators and he allegedly had played an active role in the
abduction and illegal detention of the de facto complainant.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not the real accused arrayed as the seventh
accused. Another Dilshad is really made an accused. That
Dilshad happens to be a very influential person belonging to the
B.A.No.6152/07 2
ruling party and therefore the petitioner, who bears the same
name is unnecessarily and unfortunately dragged into the
controversy. The petitioner does not deserve to endure the
trauma of arrest and detention. He shall co-operate with the
investigating officers. Appropriate conditions may be imposed.
The petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest
and detention, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
allegations are serious. There is absolutely no reason to assume
that the petitioner has been substituted for a real accused in the
anxiety to save the real accused from this prosecution. The
confession of the arrested accused as well as other materials
collected clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. The
petitioner is the one who is arrayed as the seventh accused.
Satisfactory inputs are available to array the seventh accused.
The contention of the petitioner that he is not the seventh
accused and that no materials have been collected against the
seventh accused is not justified at all, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor. The case diary has already been perused by me.
The same has been perused by me today also.
B.A.No.6152/07 3
4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I
am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where the
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be invoked.
This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must
appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate
having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and
ordinary course.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer
or the learned Magistrate 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.6152/07 4
B.A.No.6152/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007