IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4226 of 2007()
1. C.M.UMMER,S/O.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,VENGARA POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.4226 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 1st
accused. The petitioner faces allegations, inter alia, under Section
420 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner along with
the 2nd accused approached the defacto complainant with a proposal
for the marriage of the 2nd accused. The defacto complainant was
prepared to pay amounts in consideration of the marriage.
Deliberately to induce the defacto complainant to agree to the
marriage, false assertions were made that the 2nd accused is a
divorcee. He really had a wife and children. This fraudulent
misrepresentation was made allegedly to induce the complainant to
part with amounts and agree to give his daughter in marriage to the
2nd accused. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress.
The 2nd accused has already been arrested. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegations raised are totally false and incorrect. There was no
intention to suppress any information from the defacto complainant.
In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory
bail.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the facts and
B.A.No.4226 of 2007 2
circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justification in the
prayer for invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and seek regular bail, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor.
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor . I am satisfied that this 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. No circumstances to justify the
invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C is shown to
exist.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but
with the specific observation that if the petitioner appears before 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.
Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.No.4226 of 2007 3