IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7628 of 2008()
1. SAYANTH LAL.E.P
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :15/01/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------------------------------
B.A. Nos.7628 & 7692 OF 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
These petitions are for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
332, 201, 294(b), 307 read with 149 of IPC, Section 3 and 5 of
Explosive Substances Act and Section 4 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act. According to prosecution, on
04.09.2008, accused formed into an unlawful assembly and
assaulted the Dy.S.P. and other police officials. They also
pelted stones at the police jeep and the officials and jeep was
damaged and the officials were seriously injured. Country
bombs were also thrown at them. Altogether there are 50
persons and petitioners are accused nos. 6 and 10.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made.
The names of petitioners were not mentioned in the F.I.
Statement or the F.I.R. and they are brought into the array of
accused, without any basis. Some names of persons are
supplied by the political group and those are simply
B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008
2
incorporated in the reports and petitioners apprehend arrest.
Petitioners are youngsters. Tenth accused is a student and if
he is to be detained in prison, it will adversely affect his future.
Petitioners are B.J.P. activists and they have not committed
any offence. It is also submitted that some of the co-accused
are granted bail by the Sessions Court.
4. Learned counsel for tenth accused submitted that as
per the document produced, petitioner was regularly attending
the institute. It is unlikely that petitioner would have been
present in the premises at the time of occurrence. Learned
counsel for sixth accused submitted that if an identification
parade is conducted, petitioner cannot be identified, since he
has not involved in the crime. On the basis of this allegation, if
these 2 persons are detained in prison it will result in great
injustice and irreparable injury, it is submitted.
5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made are serious in
nature. The attack is made on the police party which included
even high ranking officer like Dy.S.P. The police jeep was
destroyed almost completely. Petitioners involvement is
B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008
3
revealed by the statement of the witnesses, who have
witnessed the scene and only because there is omission in the
F.I. Statement to mention the name it may not be said that
petitioners are not involved.
On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the allegations
made against against petitioners are serious in nature. It may
not be proper in a case of this nature to grant anticipatory bail,
unless some strong circumstances are pointed out to show that
petitioners are actually not involved. A bare assertion that they
are implicated due to political intervention by itself may not be
a ground to come to a conclusion in favour of petitioners at
this early stage of investigation. The court can act only on the
basis of the materials in the case diary at this stage and no
such circumstances is pointed out to grant anticipatory bail.
i) Petitioners are directed to surrender before
the Magistrate court concerned or the
Investigating Officer and bound to co-operate
with the investigation.
ii) If petitioners surrender before the Magistrate
court and file application for bail, all the
B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008
4
contentions raised before this court can be
raised before that court also and learned
Magistrate shall look into those contentions
and dispose of the same on merit.
iii) It is made clear that rejection of anticipatory
bail cannot be by itself be a ground to reject
the application under Section 437 Cr.P.C.
Consideration for granting or rejection of
anticipatory bail are different from those to be
considered under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The bail
application if any filed under Section 437
Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of, untrammelled by
any of the observations made in this order.
with these observations, these petitions are disposed of.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac