IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3692 of 2007()
1. A.V.KUNHI RAMAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3692 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner faces allegations
under Section 308 I.P.C (and strangely not 307 I.P.C). The crux of the
allegations is that with the intention of causing death of the defacto
complainant, the petitioner fired a shot from his pistol at the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant suffered gun shot injury.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations are totally false. There is bitter animosity between the
complainant and the accused and the complainant has invented
fanciful allegations to falsely implicate the petitioner. In the F.I
statement, there is no specific allegation even of a pistol being used to
commit the offence. In these circumstances, directions under Section
438 Cr.P.C may be issued, prays the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are
serious. The case diary reveals satisfactory materials to support the
allegations raised. Though in the F.I statement, there is no specific
B.A.No.3692 of 2007 2
reference to a fire arm, a total reading of the F.I statement must
convey that a fire arm was used for the commission of the offence.
Custodial interrogation is essential. Recovery of the weapon is
absolutely necessary. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not
entitled to any direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor .
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. I shall scrupulously avoid any detailed discussion or
expression of opinion on the acceptability of the allegations and the
credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am not
persuaded at all to hold that this is a fit case where directions under
Section 438 Cr.P.C can or ought to be issued. The petitioner must
follow the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing/surrendering
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. He must
then seek bail in the ordinary course.
5. In the result, this application is, dismissed with the above
observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-