Shinoy vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 17 September, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 5244 of 2007()


1. SHINOY, S/O VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.ANIL

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :17/09/2007

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       B.A.No. 5244 of 2007
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 17th day of September, 2007

                                 O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 7th

accused. Altogether there are 9 accused persons arrayed now. The

accused face allegations, inter alia, under Section 307 I.P.C. This

incident is also one in connection with political animosity between

two groups – R.S.S. and C.P.M. In the F.I.R. the petitioner is not

named. The first accused and other seven persons identifiable by

sight are the persons shown as accused. Four persons have

suffered injuries. The injuries suffered include very serious injuries

also, points out the learned Prosecutor. Though the petitioner’s name

was not specifically given in the F.I.S./F.I.R. one of the injured

persons on examination had revealed the identity of the petitioner.

He had been arrayed as accused as per report dt. 26.4.2007 also.

Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent

arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are

B.A.No. 5244 of 2007
2

being raised against the petitioner merely because he happens to belong to

the R.S.S. The petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest

and incarceration. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is

prayed.

3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. It is true that the

petitioner has not been named in the F.I.R., but nothing crucial turns upon

that, submits the Prosecutor. The F.I. statement was given by a person,

who had specifically named only the first accused. The subsequent

investigation clearly indicate the complicity of the petitioner. The

Investigator has no vexatious intent as can be seen from the fact that they

have waited for the investigation make progress before arraying the

petitioner as an accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not

deserve the invocation of the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The

petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer or the

learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the

Prosecutor.

4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the

opposition. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner

must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the

B.A.No. 5244 of 2007
3

Investigator or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the

ordinary course. I find no reason to invoke the extra ordinary equitable

discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however

hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm