IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1908 of 2008()
1. SHIBU, AGED 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. MANIKANDAN @ KRISHNAKUMAR,
3. GEORGEKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS,
4. SHERIOUS @ SHERAPPAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SAJEEV
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :26/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A. No. 1908 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008
ORDER
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 1 to 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at the
outset, submits that the 3rd petitioner/the 3rd accused has
subsequently been arrested and enlarged on bail by the
learned Magistrate and, in these circumstances, the petition in
so far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned is not being pressed
now.
2. Altogether, there are 10 accused persons. Four of
them i.e., the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. There are 6
other accused also who are not named. The alleged incident
took place on 3/3/08 and 5.30 p.m. On account of prior
animosity, the accused persons, who came in 6 motor-cycles,
allegedly trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant
B.A. No. 1908 of 2008 -: 2 :-
and indulged in wanton acts of violence, mischief and damage
was caused to the building. Injuries, though only simple, were
caused to the victims. Investigation is in progress. The
petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. False allegations are being
raised against them. They may be granted anticipatory bail, it is
prayed.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all available
indications point to the complicity of the petitioners. Victims
have suffered injuries. The premises had suffered damage to
the tune of Rs.6,000/-. The scene mahazar prepared bears
eloquent testimony to the nature of the damage caused to the
building. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may be
directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek
regular bail. There are absolutely no circumstances justifying or
warranting the invocation of the extraordinary equitable
discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C., submits the learned
Public Prosecutor.
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied
B.A. No. 1908 of 2008 -: 3 :-
that this is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to
surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the
normal and usual course.
6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with
the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the
Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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.
Sd/-
(R. BASANT, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge