IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1514 of 2008()
1. JYOTHISH KUMAR N.K., AGED 30 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. RAVEENDRAN K., AGED 26 YEARS,
3. JYOTHISH KUMAR V.K., AGED 21 YEARS,
4. DHANARAJAN.C, AGED 23 YEARS,
5. MANIKANDAN.K., AGED 21 YEARS,
6. PAVIDAS P., AGED 19 YEARS,
7. CHANDRAN V.K., AGED 28 YEARS,
8. SUNIL KUMAR.C., AGED 26 YEARS,
9. SURESH KUMAR N.K., AGED 33 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1514 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1
to 9. Altogether there are 15 accused persons. All the
petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They face allegations in a
crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under
Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. On 17.02.08 at about 5.50 p.m on
account of animosity which arose from an incident which had
taken place a couple of days’ earlier at a Thalappoli festival in the
locality, accused persons armed with swords and iron rods
allegedly attacked the defacto complainant resulting in grievous
injuries including fracture of the left radius for the defacto
complainant. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners
apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They are falsely
implicated. The alleged motive is too insufficient to justify the
alleged overt acts committed by the petitioners. In these
circumstances anticipatory bail may be granted to the
petitioners, it is prayed.
B.A.No.1514 of 2008 2
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. Sufficiency of a motive is too dangerous of a criteria
in the adjudication of culpability in criminal cases. Culpable
responsibility cannot be assessed on the basis of the sufficiency
of motive. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the more
unreasonable a person is the less the motive necessary to
unleash an attack on the other. In these circumstances
arguments advanced on the basis of the sufficiency of motive
may not weigh with the Court, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor .
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I shall
carefully avoid any detailed discussion about the acceptability of
the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. I am not
persuaded to agree that there are any features in this case which
can justify 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.
B.A.No.1514 of 2008 3
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.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-