IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 2233 of 2008()
1. SIDHIKH K.M., S/O.MUHAMMED K.V.
... Petitioner
2. ROHITH A.M., S/O.NARAYANAN A.M.
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :10/04/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 2233 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused 5 and 6. Altogether there are 15 accused persons. A1 to
A6 alone are named in the F.I.R. The accused face allegations in
a crime registered alleging commission of offences punishable,
inter alia, under Section 3 of the PDPP Act. That is the only non-
bailable offence alleged.
2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that
in the name of conducting a protest march, they along with the
co-accused indulged in wanton acts of mischief and violence and
caused damage to a jeep belonging to the Manjeri Municipality.
Damage to the tune of Rs.4,000/- was suffered by the said jeep.
Investigation is in progress. Accused 1 to 4 have already been
arrested. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. They belong to the
B.A.No. 2233 of 2008
2
opposition political outfit and that is why vexatious allegations are
raised against them by the police in an attempt to oblige their political
masters. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to
suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. All the
available indications point to the culpability of the petitioners. They
are named specifically in the F.I.R. The right to descent cannot be
deteriorated into a licence for the acts of violence and mischief,
submits the learned Prosecutor.
5. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I find absolutely no reason
available at the moment to doubt, suspect or discard the version of the
prosecution. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case
where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure
of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.
B.A.No. 2233 of 2008
3
6. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however
hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned
Magistrate and apply 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