High Court Kerala High Court

Digesh.P. vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Digesh.P. vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6675 of 2008()


1. DIGESH.P., S/O.K.P.V. DAMODHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. JAYESH T.V., S/O.CHERIAKKAN, AGED 23
3. VINOD T.V., S/O.O.KARUNAKARAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :04/02/2009

 O R D E R
                            K.HEMA, J.
                      --------------------------------
                     B.A. No.6675 OF 2008
                      --------------------------------
            Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009


                             O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,

447, 379, 435 read with 149 of I.P.C. According to

prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 to 3) along with others

formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the

porch of the house of defacto complainant and took away the

motor cycle from the porch and set fire to the same and

thereby the defacto complainant suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/-.

3. According to petitioner, the incident did not occur, as

alleged. Petitioners are members of CPI(M) and they are

innocent of the allegations made. The investigation is almost

over and petitioner is ready to co-operate with the

investigation and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is

submitted.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the crime was registered as early as on

09.10.2008 and petitioners are not available for investigation.

B.A.No.6675 of 2008
2

They are required for the purpose of interrogation and

investigation. On the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to

grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of

the allegations made and also the stage of the investigation, I

am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

No special circumstance is pointed out to invoke Section 438

Cr.P.C. Petitioners are required for investigation and hence

the following order is passed :-

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer forthwith and co-

operate with the investigation. Whether they

surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest

them and proceed in accordance with law.

ii) No further application for anticipatory bail

by petitioners will be entertained by this

court in this crime, since considering the

facts and nature of the allegations made, this

court has already found that it is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail and any order

B.A.No.6675 of 2008
3

to the contrary will amount to review of this

order, which is not permissible in law.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac