IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 3977 of 2007()
1. SHIBU, AGED 34, S/O.RAGHU, RAMANVILASOM,
... Petitioner
2. PREM, AGED 28, S/O.SURENDRAN,
3. BAIJU STEPHAN, AGED 30, S/O.STEPHEN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :02/07/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No. 3977 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 to 3. They face allegations under Sections 353 and
294(b) read with 34 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations raised
against the petitioners is that they, who were proceeding on a
motor cycle, assaulted an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police on
duty who wanted to restrain the petitioners from proceeding
further along a public road in the light of a procession which was
to take place. The petitioners allegedly became furious when
they were asked not to proceed. One of them allegedly shouted,
abusive and obscene words and pushed away the hand of the
police officer who tried to restrain them. Thereupon, a crime
was registered against these persons showing the number of the
motor cycle. Later, the petitioners were ascertained as the
accused and necessary report to that effect was given.
Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend
imminent arrest.
B.A.No.3977/07 2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the allegations are totally false. The incident did not take place
in the manner alleged by the complainant at all. There was a
procession and the traffic was being unjustifiably obstructed by
the police. On that aspect, there was a wordy altercation. The
present crime has hence been raised by the A.S.I against the
petitioners.
3. The application is opposed by the learned Public
Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there
are no circumstances justifying the invocation of the jurisdiction
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is absolutely no mala fides
involved as can be seen by the registration of the F.I.R wherein
the number of the motor cycle and not the name of the accused
is shown.
4. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public
Prosecutor. I do not find any reason to permit the petitioners to
arm themselves with an order of anticipatory bail. I am satisfied
that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to allay the
apprehension of physical harm and torture, the petitioners can
be given an opportunity to appear before the learned Magistrate
B.A.No.3977/07 3
and seek regular bail in the ordinary course. The possibility of
their being arrested and detained in police custody before they
get an opportunity to approach the learned Magistrate for bail
can be so avoided in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case.
5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The following
directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
i) Petitioners shall surrender before the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 09/07/2007.
ii) The petitioners may apply for bail after giving
sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case.
The learned Magistrate must thereafter, proceed to pass
appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and on the
date of surrender itself.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
B.A.No.3977/07 4
B.A.No.3977/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007