IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5712 of 2007()
1. S. BABU, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
2. VIJAYAN, AGED 46,
3. RATNAKARAN, AGED 50,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.5712 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October, 2007
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1, 3 &
4. The gist of the allegations against them is that when the police
party, led by the Circle Inspector of Police, reached the spot, they
were found engaging themselves – 9 named persons including the
petitioners and 21 others, in the conduct of illicit removal of sand
belonging to the local authority. On seeing the police party, the
accused ran away. Only some of them could be apprehended. 9
persons including the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. The
petitioners could not be arrested at the scene. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
allegations are totally false. The 1st accused was engaged in the
activity of shrimp farming in his own property. He was engaged in
such activity for a long period of time. It was from his own property
that he was undertaking the operation. Bunds were being constructed
to prevent the escape of shrimps from his farm to the river. It was in
the course of such attempt that the police came to the scene and
raised unnecessary and vexatious allegations against the petitioners.
B.A.No.5712 of 2007 2
In these circumstances, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory
bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available
indications suggest that the petitioners were involved continuously in
the activity of illicit removal of sand belonging to the local authority.
At the moment and with the available inputs, there is absolutely
nothing to assume that the petitioners were not indulging in the
objectionable activity of removal of sand belonging to the local
authority. In these circumstances, the petitioners may not be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
4. I have considered all the relevant circumstances. A
detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations and the
credibility of the data collected is not necessary now. Suffice it to say
that on a total evaluation of all the relevant circumstances, I find no
features in this case which justify the invocation of the extraordinary
equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the
learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioners must
appear before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the
ordinary course.
B.A.No.5712 of 2007 3
5. This bail application is, in these circumstances, dismissed,
but with the specific observation that if the petitioners appear before
the learned Magistrate and apply for regular 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/-