IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6309 of 2009()
1. JOSEPH,S/O.CHACKO,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :17/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009
O R D E R
Apprehending arrest by Perinthalmanna Police on an accusation of
having committed non-bailable offence, the petitioner has filed this
application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 4.11.2009,
the following order was passed:
“The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna or by any of his
subordinates on an accusation of having committed non-
bailable offence on the basis of a petition filed by one
Mr.Jose, S/o.Poulose. The learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that Mr.Jose had filed a petition before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police. In order to verify the correctness
or otherwise of the allegations, the Police directed the
petitioner to appear. The learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner failed to appear. The Counsel
for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner appeared
before the Police on two occasions, on those occasions, the
B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
Deputy Superintendent of Police was not available in the
Police Station. It is not necessary to resolve this dispute in
this Bail Application.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of
the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an
opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear
before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a
direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating
officer at 9 A.M on 9th and 10th November, 2009.
Post on 17.11.2009.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that
the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders.
The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before
the investigating officer.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has complied with the direction in
the order dated 4.11.2009. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted
that the petitioner has stated the relevant facts before the investigating
officer and that on the basis of the information supplied, it was thought
that there is no necessity to register a crime in the case. Therefore, there
is no intention to arrest the petitioner. This submission is recorded.
B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
The Bail Application is accordingly closed with liberty to the
petitioner to approach this Court again as and when occasion arises.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/