IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1720 of 2008()
1. HASHIM, AGED 42 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL SHUKOOR, AGED 40 YEARS,
3. PARTHASARATHY, AGED 55 YEARS,
4. VASU, AGED 60 YEARS,
5. MANIYAN, AGED 51 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1720 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 3, 4
and 7 to 9 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable,
inter alia, under Sections 452 and 332 I.P.C and Section 3(2) of
the P.D.P.P Act. The alleged incident took place on 19.02.08.
That was a day of hartal declared by the opposition parties. It is
alleged that the petitioners were members of an unlawful
assembly of persons who in furtherance of the common object of
the unlawful assembly marched into the K.S.E.B office and
indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence within the office
of the K.S.E.B. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners
apprehend imminent arrest. Some of the co-accused allegedly
have specific overt acts raised against them. They surrendered
before the learned Magistrate and they have been enlarged on
bail.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent. They are active political
functionaries. They have been unnecessarily brought on the array
of accused. The petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail,
it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
B.A.No.1720 of 2008 2
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that wanton acts of
violence and mischief were resorted to and damage and
destruction were caused to the public office. In any view of the
matter, the petitioners may be directed to surrender before the
learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer
and then seek regular bail. No circumstances exist justifying the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section
438 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find no
features available in this case which can justify or warrant the
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section
438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a
fit case where the petitioners must appear before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction
and then seek regular bail.
5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender
before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and
apply 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.
B.A.No.1720 of 2008 3
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-