IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4369 of 2008()
1. SAJRAM, 39 YEARS
... Petitioner
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :16/07/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 4369 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th July, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 399 of Indian Penal
Code. According to prosecution, five persons were found near a
temple in suspicious circumstance and on questioning them, three
of them ran away. Accused 1 to 3 were arrested from the spot.
From their possession, chilly powder, gloves and knife were seized.
Persons who ran away are accused 2, 3 and 5. Petitioner is the 5th
accused. The incident happened on 18.5.2008.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the local
Circle Inspector of Police has been harassing the petitioner at the
instance of a prominent financing group of the locality known as
“Kallada Group”. Petitioner is residing in his house with his wife,
children and his aged mother. His mother is a retired Headmistress.
Petitioner’s father was a reputed businessman and he is no more.
Petitioner’s wife is a teacher in a nearby school. Petitioner was
working abroad for nine years and he started real-estate business,
after coming back to India. He is also engaged in private money
BA.4369/08 2
lending business. He lends money at lesser rate of interest than
what was received by the other financing group in the locality. On
several occasions the henchmen of the financing company
demanded the petitioner to stop the business and threatened the
petitioner with dire consequences. But the petitioner continued to
do the business and it provoked the “Kallada Group” and they
influenced the Circle Inspector, who insisted to wind up his
business and he was threatened that he would be taught a lesson.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also falsely
implicated in a series of cases under Section 402 IPC, Section 324
IPC etc. In an offence committed in the temple premises,
petitioner’s name was also included deliberately but it was
subsequently compounded before the Lok Adalath. The petitioner is
not able to peacefully live in the locality because of the harassment
of the Circle Inspector, who is falsely implicating the petitioner in
various crimes, it is submitted.
5. The petitioner’s mother filed a complaint, Annexure A2,
before the Superintendent of Police on 5.4.2008, narrating the
alleged harassment from the police at the instance of the Circle
Inspector. Annexure A3 is the another complaint filed against police
harassment before the Superintendent of Police on 17.4.2008 by
the petitioner’s mother. On 21.5.2008 also, two days after the
alleged incident in this case, she lodged a complaint before the
BA.4369/08 3
Superintendent of Police and the copy of the same is Annexure A4.
It is specifically stated therein that on the date on which the
incident is allegedly occurred, the petitioner was very much present
in the house, since there was a dinner in connection with the arrival
of the petitioner’s elder brother from Gulf on that day. Throughout
the day, the petitioner was resent in the house but there was an
attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present crime.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
only the victim of the animosity of a financing group and false cases
are registered against him by influencing the Circle Inspector of
Police. Petitioner was not even present at the scene and the
petitioner was not arrested also. In case he is arrested, it is likely
that he will be tortured at the police station. It is also submitted
that after filing the first complaint, Annexure A2, signed blank
papers were obtained from the petitioner’s mother, who was
approached by the Circle Inspector for compelling her to withdraw
the earlier complaint. These facts are stated in Annexure A3.
7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the allegations made are all incorrect and no
complaints are received against the Circle Inspector of Police.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a case where
anticipatory bail can be granted. It may not be proper to exercise
the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., it is submitted. But the
BA.4369/08 4
learned counsel for petitioner produced for perusal a receipt to
show that Annexure A4 was received by the Superintendent of
Police on 21.5.2008. In Annexure A4, a reference is made regarding
the complaints given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of
Police on 5.4.2008 and 17.4.2008 also (Annexures A2 and A3).
8. On hearing both sides and going through the documents
produced in this case, I am satisfied that on the facts of this case,
the failure to grant anticipatory bail will result in serious harm and
injury to the petitioner. It is only just and proper that the petitioner
is granted anticipatory bail and hence the following order is passed:
Petitioner shall surrender before the
Magistrate Court concerned within seven days
from today and if any bail application is moved,
he shall be released on bail on his executing a
bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties
each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Magistrate.
This petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.