IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6525 of 2007()
1. PRAVEEN BABU C.R.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/11/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 6525 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the
first accused. Altogether there were three accused persons in the
F.I.R. In the course of investigation, the other two accused have
been deleted from the array of accused. The petitioner faces
allegation under Section 380 I.P.C. He is the Secretary of a
temple committee. The crux of the allegations is that the
ornaments of the idol were thieved and attempts were made by
the petitioner through some others to sell the ornaments of the
idol. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends
imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. He belongs to Scheduled Caste.
He owes allegiance to B.J.P. The other members of the temple
committee do not owe allegiance to B.J.P. and they are members
of the ruling party. All of them do not belong to Scheduled
B.A.No. 6525 of 2007
2
Caste/tribe. They are making false allegations against the petitioner
that the petitioner has stolen the ornaments of the diety. As a matter
of fact, the Poojari of the temple is in possession of the ornaments.
The petitioner is not in possession of the ornaments. False and
vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner by his
adversaries, who belong to different castes and different political
parties with the transparent intention of vexing and harassing him. He
does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may
now be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned counsel. The
learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had filed a complaint
under the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. That
case is also pending investigation before the petitioner.
3. The learned Prosecutor, after taking instructions, submits that
the said case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was only
an attempt made by the petitioner to avoid blame which is raised
against him in this crime. Investigation has revealed the falsity of the
allegations raised in that crime. Decision has already been taken by the
Investigators to refer the said complaint as unsustainable.
B.A.No. 6525 of 2007
3
4. The learned Prosecutor further submits that there are
indications available in this case, which show that the petitioner was
having possession of some of the ornaments of the diety and that the
petitioner had made attempts through others to dispose of the said
ornaments. A thorough and exhaustive interrogation of the petitioner
is necessary to recover the stolen articles, which are suspected to be
available in the possession of the petitioner. At any rate, the petitioner
may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail.
He may be directed to co-operate with the Investigators. He will have
to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate
having jurisdiction, submits the learned Prosecutor.
5. The case diary has been perused by me. Considering the
nature of the allegations raised, I shall carefully not embark on a
detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations
raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I
do not find 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 am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must
B.A.No. 6525 of 2007
4
resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing 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)
Judge
tm