IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3326 of 2007()
1. P.A.SHUKOOR, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/11/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is
arrayed as the 2nd accused in a crime registered under Section 489 B
(c) I.P.C. Altogether there are 2 accused persons. The petitioner is
the 2nd accused. The 1st accused was arrested on 11.10.07. He
allegedly had 84 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
in his possession. He was interrogated. His interrogation allegedly
revealed the complicity of the petitioner. The petitioner was hence
shown as the 2nd accused in the crime. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The petitioner has come to this Court with two alternative
prayers. The first prayer is virtually a prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail. Alternatively it is contended that there may be a direction that if
the petitioner surrenders and applies for bail, the learned Magistrate
may be directed to consider the application for bail on the date of
surrender itself.
3. Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation reveals the
complicity of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that
Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2007 2
accused No.1 has some animosity against him and therefore he has
given the name of the petitioner to implicate him falsely is not correct
at all. Investigation reveals that the petitioner has been in touch with
the 1st accused from time to time. On days immediately preceding his
arrest, the petitioner had repeatedly contacted the 1st accused. It is
not as though the investigator has only the confession statement of
the 1st accused to suspect the nexus between the 1st and 2nd accused,
but the independent investigation has also revealed that there is some
nexus between the petitioner and the 1st accused. In these
circumstances, there is absolutely no justification in the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail. No directions need be issued to the learned
Magistrate also. The petitioner may be directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular
bail in the normal and ordinary course, submits the learned Public
Prosecutor .
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I agree with the
learned Public Prosecutor that there are no circumstances in this
case, which would justify or warrant the invocation of the
extraordinary inherent/equitable jurisdiction under Section 482/438
Cr.P.C. I find no features in this case which would justify such
Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2007 3
invocation. 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 ordinary course.
5. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I
may hasten to observe that if the petitioner surrenders 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/-
Crl.M.C.No.3326 of 2007 4