IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 4623 of 2007()
1. K.O.PAVITHRAN,S/O.GOPALAN,AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. V.T.PREMAN,S/O.ANDI,AGED 38 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.4623 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners allegedly are
persons running a chitty company. The defacto complainant owed
amounts to the chitty company. He had complained to the police
about the high handed acts of those responsible for running the chitty
company. In respect of such complaint, the defacto complainant was
threatened and intimidated by the accused persons. Altogether there
are 6 accused persons. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They
are named in the F.I.R. 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 managers of the chitty
company and they had not gone anywhere near the alleged scene of
the crime. Vexatious allegations are being raised against the
petitioners, submits the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The prosecution
has no case that any injury has been caused to the defacto
complainant. A truthful allegation of what really happened – trespass
into the house of defacto complainant and intimidation for the purpose
B.A.No.4623 of 2007 2
of extracting the payment of the alleged amount due is the only
specific allegation. There are no circumstances justifying the
invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Money lenders
cannot be permitted to take law into their hands and enforce their own
justice, submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. I do not in this case find any features which would justify
invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438
Cr.P.C. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must
appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the
Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary
course.
4. 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 applies 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/-