IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6654 of 2007()
1. LALKUMAR, SHANTHINEKETHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHYAM K.L.
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 6654 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C.
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that
he had fraudulently dealt with a vehicle which was handed over
to him by the defacto complainant on the basis of an agreement
for sale. The vehicle was not traceable. It is apprehended that
the vehicle has been dismantled and disposed of by the
petitioner. Crime has been registered on the basis of a private
complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the learned
Magistrate and referred to the police under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations levelled
B.A.No. 6654 of 2007
2
against him. He is only a vehicle broker. He does not purchase the
vehicles in his name. He only brokers the deal between individuals. In
these circumstances the petitioner does not deserve to endure the
trauma of arrest, if any of the parties to such a deal brokered by him
had committed any culpable act. The petitioner may, in these
circumstances be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. The case
diary was placed before me for my perusal. I have perused the same.
The learned Prosecutor points out that the document seized by the
police in this case does clearly show that the petitioner was not a mere
broker and was the one who had purchased the vehicle from the
defacto complainant. The petitioner has to be thoroughly interrogated.
The vehicle which has been clandestinely disposed of has to be traced.
In these circumstances the petitioner may not be permitted to arm
himself with an order of anticipatory bail, submits the Prosecutor. He
points out that the petitioner has been absconding for a long period of
time. The crime was registered as early as on 17.8.2006, but the
petitioner was not available for apprehension.
B.A.No. 6654 of 2007
3
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any
features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra
ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the
petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case
where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator
or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail
in the ordinary course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may
however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
B.A.No. 6654 of 2007
4
Judge
tm