IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 1726 of 2008(S)
1. SUNIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :19/03/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 1726 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole
accused in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C.
The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, actuated by
animus against the defacto complainant, who is a witness to the
occurrence in another crime allegedly committed by the
petitioner against the brother of the defacto complainant herein,
had intimidated and threatened the defacto complainant by
running after him with a chopper into his own house, where he
tried to take shelter from the petitioner herein. The alleged
incident took place on 4.2.2008. Investigation is in progress.
The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent. He is really the victim of
aggression and not the aggressor. The police, in collusion
with the defacto complainant is helping him to foist false case
B.A.No. 1726 of 2008
2
against the petitioner. He may, in these circumstances, be granted
anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that all the available indications do satisfactorily point to the
complicity of the petitioner. There are no circumstances justifying or
warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner
may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the
learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course,
submits the learned Prosecutor.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to
perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation
of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in
favour of the petitioner. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the
petitioner 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 usual course.
B.A.No. 1726 of 2008
3
5. 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