IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6018 of 2007()
1. AJITH C.N., AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.6018 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st
accused. He along with co-accused faces allegations in a crime
registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C.
The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner is the son of the
landlord of the building. There was a dispute between the landlord and
the tenant about the alleged unauthorised induction of a sub lessee by
the tenant into the premises. The petitioner along with some others is
alleged to have gone to the shop and indulged in wanton acts of
mischief and violence. After making prior preparations, the accused
persons had allegedly gone to the tenanted premises to vex, intimidate
and attack the tenant, it is alleged. The crime has been registered.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The boot is on the other leg. The
petitioner was not the aggressor but he was the victim of aggression.
He had gone to the tenanted premises and the petitioner was attacked
by the tenant. Apprehending that the petitioner may raise allegations
B.A.No.6018 of 2007 2
against the tenant, false and vexatious allegations have been raised
against the petitioner and others. The petitioner may be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are absolutely no
circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the
extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The
learned Public Prosecutor has read to this Court the scene mahazar
from the case diary which reveals telltale indications of the acts of
violence and mischief inside the premises.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I shall not
embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations
or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that there is
merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor and that this
is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must appear before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular
bail in the ordinary course. I find no features in this case which would
justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I
may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders before the
B.A.No.6018 of 2007 3
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 and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-