IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1515 of 2008()
1. SAJUMON @ BABU, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :12/03/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.No.1515 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the 1st
accused. He is the only named accused in the F.I.R. 7 others had
also allegedly participated in the occurrence. Personal animosity
is the alleged motive. Stones and iron rods were used for the
attack. There is an allegation that the wife of the 1st accused had
illicit relationship with the defacto complainant. On account of
this animosity, the car in which the defacto complainant was
travelling was stopped on the road and an attack was unleashed
on him, it is alleged. The victim had suffered fracture of the
upper limb. The alleged incident took place on 03.01.08. Crime
is registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under
Sections 326 and 308 r/w 149 I.P.C. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegation is improbable,
argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defacto
complainant was travelling in the car of a friend of his. It is
B.A.No.1515 of 2008 2
unlikely that anyone could have anticipated that he would be
coming in that car. The place of incident is neither near the house
of the accused nor near the house of the defacto complainant.
There is no probability of the road being blocked in such place.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an
accident appears to have taken place and the defacto
complainant appears to have lodged a claim before the insurer of
the car that an accident had taken place and the vehicle had
suffered damage. In any view of the matter the petitioner may be
granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is very evident that
no accident had taken place and the damage was suffered by the
car and the injury was suffered by the defacto complainant.
There is nothing artificial or improbable in the version of the
defacto complainant about the circumstances under which he
suffered injuries. In any view of the matter, there are absolutely
no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the
extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.1515 of 2008 3
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. A more
detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the
allegations is unwarranted at this stage. I am unable to perceive
any features available in this case which can 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 petitioner must appear before the Investigating
Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek
regular bail.
5. This application 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/-