High Court Kerala High Court

Jayaprakash @ Jayakuttan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 24 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Jayaprakash @ Jayakuttan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 24 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 1755 of 2008()


1. JAYAPRAKASH @ JAYAKUTTAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :24/03/2008

 O R D E R
                            R.BASANT, J.
                         ----------------------
                         B.A.No.1755 of 2008
                     ----------------------------------------
           Dated this the 24th day of March 2008

                                O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first

accused. Altogether there are two accused persons. The second

accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The

alleged incident took place on 22/1/2008. Both the accused persons

allegedly went to the house of the de facto complainant and abused.

He closed the front door. Both accused trespassed into the house

and attacked the de facto complainant. Serious incised injury was

inflicted on him. Crime has been registered under Sections 452 and

324 I.P.C. Prior animosity is the alleged motive. Investigation is

pending. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner may not be

compelled to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may

now be enlarged on bail. The only non-bailable offence alleged is

the one punishable under Section 452 I.P.C, points out the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no features in

this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the

extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This

B.A.No.1755/08 2

is a fit case where the petitioner may be directed to surrender

before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate and then

seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public

Prosecutor.

4. The case diary has been placed before me. I have gone

through the F.I.R in detail. I have perused the wound certificate

which reveals the nature of the prompt allegations made to the

doctor and also the nature of injuries suffered. I shall scrupulously

avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of

the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected.

Suffice it to say that I find merit in the opposition by the learned

Public Prosecutor. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor,

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.

5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say,

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, in

accordance with law and expeditiously.




                                                 (R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr  // True Copy//        PA to Judge

B.A.No.1755/08    3

B.A.No.1755/08    4

       R.BASANT, J.




         CRL.M.CNo.




            ORDER




21ST DAY OF MAY2007