IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3771 of 2007()
1. REMANAN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN,
... Petitioner
2. SHIBU @ APPU AGED 31 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAISHANKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :27/06/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.3771 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 6
and 11. Altogether there are 12 accused persons. They face
allegations, inter alia, under Sections 452 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The
crux of the allegations is that the defacto complainant was attacked at
2 a.m on 29.08.2006 by members of an unlawful assembly. The 1st
petitioner (6th accused) is named in the F.I.R. The 2nd petitioner (11th
accused) has been arrayed as an accused subsequently as one of the
identifiable person referred to 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. Anticipatory bail may, in these
circumstances, be granted to the petitioners, it is prayed. So far as
the 6th accused, it is contended that though the name and father’s
name of the petitioner tally with the description of the 6th accused, the
other details (address of the place of residence) do not tally with and
therefore the 6th accused is entitled for anticipatory bail on that
ground also.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions
submits that there is absolutely no confusion about the identity of the
B.A.No.3771 of 2007 2
6th accused. Notwithstanding the innocuous difference in the
description of the address of the 6th accused, it is evident that it is one
and the same person that is arrayed as the 6th accused and who has
filed this application for anticipatory bail. The addresses referred to,
on the basis of which confusion is attempted to be created, are only
the former and present addresses of the accused persons, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I find no merit in
the attempt to create confusion on the basis of the difference in the
address of the 6th accused. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case, where the
petitioners must resort to the ordinary and regular procedure of
appearing before the learned Magistrate or the Investigating Officer.
They must then seek regular bail. Needless to say that their
applications for regular bail will have to be considered by the learned
Magistrate on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. No
further or better directions appear to be necessary. All courts must
do the same.
5. In the result, this bail application is, dismissed with the
above observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
B.A.No.3771 of 2007 3