Binu vs State Of Kerala Through The on 22 August, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5109 of 2007()


1. BINU,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O,. YOHANNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :22/08/2007

 O R D E R
                                 R.BASANT, J
                          ------------------------------------
                           B.A.No.5109 of 2007
                         -------------------------------------
                Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2007

                                      ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces

allegations, inter alia, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to

Public Property Act 1984 as also under Section 353 I.P.C. The crux of

the allegations against the petitioner is that he allegedly deterred

sales tax official in the Vellachal Check post from performing his duty.

He allegedly hit the barricade causing damage to the same and

ignoring the request of the official to stop his vehicle he sped away

after causing damage to the barricade.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner was not present in

any vehicle which allegedly was involved in the incident. The

petitioner ‘s vehicle was also not involved in the incident. In these

circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is

urged.

3. The application is opposed by the learned Public

Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no

circumstances whatsoever to doubt or suspect the version of the

defacto complainant. It is certainly for the petitioner to appear before

B.A.No.5109 of 2007 2

the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and offer the

necessary explanations. At any rate, at the moment and with the

available inputs, there is no reason to doubt or suspect the version of

the complainant and there are no circumstances whatsoever to justify

the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section

438 Cr.P.C. This petition may, in these circumstances, be dismissed,

submits the learned Public Prosecutor .

4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the

opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I am not persuaded to

agree that there are any 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

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/-