IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4015 of 2007(C)
1. CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. RAJASEKHARA PILLAI,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.4015 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1
and 2. They are son-in-law of the defacto complainant and brother of
the son-in-law of the defacto complainant. The crux of the allegations
is that on 23.5.07 at 7 p.m, the accused persons along with two others
trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and attacked the
defacto complainant, his son and his employee with dangerous
weapons. The defacto complainant suffered fairly serious injuries.
The incident took place at 7 p.m and at 7.45 p.m the injured was at
hospital and had narrated to the doctor the alleged cause as assault
by the son in law. F.I statement was registered when the defacto
complainant was undergoing treatment on 29.05.2007 only.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent
arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. He submits that actually a
different incident had taken place on 22.5.07 and apprehending that
action may be taken in respect of that incident in which the son of the
defacto complainant is the aggressor, the present false allegations
have been raised. Actually the incident had taken place on 22.05.07
B.A.No.4015 of 2007 2
and no incident at all had taken place on 23.05.07. Both the
petitioners are well employed. Arrest and incarceration is likely to
affect the prospectus of their continuing in employment. In these
circumstances it is prayed that directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C in
favour of the petitioner may be issued.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations are
serious and grave. Father-in-law/defacto complainant was attacked at
his house with dangerous weapons. Fairly serious injuries have been
caused to him. The wound certificate clearly suggests that the
injuries were suffered on 23.05.07 only and it is unlikely that having
suffered the injuries on the previous date, the defacto complainant
would have waited for one day to go to the doctor. Whatever may
have happened on the previous day, that has no bearing whatsoever
on the facts in controversy in the present case, it is submitted. In
these circumstances it is prayed that anticipatory bail may not be
granted to the petitioners. They may be directed to resort to the
ordinary and normal course of appearing before the investigator or
the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail.
4. I find merit in the opposition of the learned Public
Prosecutor. I have already referred to the skeletal facts. A more
detailed reference to facts or an attempt to resolve the facts in
B.A.No.4015 of 2007 3
controversy is not necessary at all. I am satisfied that there is no
justification in the prayer to invoke the extraordinary equitable
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners must resort to
the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating
Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. They must then
seek bail.
5. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders 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.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-