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/-