IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6216 of 2007()
1. T.BASHEER, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
2. T.KABEER,
3. T.MUNEER,
4. T.SUJEER,
5. K.M.SUNIL KUMAR,
6. K.M.SUNDHARAN,
7. K.BIJEESH,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :22/10/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 6216 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1
to 7 in a crime registered for offences, inter alia, under Section 326
r/w. 149 I.P.C. The prosecution allegation in a nut shell is that
infuriated by exchange of words and altercation in an earlier incident,
the petitioners allegedly attacked the defacto complainant and others
with dangerous weapons. The defacto complainant had suffered a
fracture of fibula on account of such attack. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. According to the petitioners,
there is a counter case also. In the counter case a relative of the
petitioners was attacked by the defacto complainant and others. On
account of animosity, false allegations of a subsequent incident are
being raised. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail,
submits the counsel. The learned counsel submits that a careful
reading of the F.I.R.s in both the cases must reveal that the incident
B.A.No. 6216 of 2007′ 2
had taken place at 6 p.m. and that the attempt to make out that a later
incident had taken place is not justified at all.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that
the sequence of events narrated clearly show that the later incident was a
retaliation against the first incident. In these circumstances anticipatory bail
may not be granted to the petitioners.
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to
agree that this is a fit case where directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can
or ought to be issued. I take note of the submission of the learned
Prosecutor that the counter case has already been investigated and a
decision to refer the case has been taken. The earlier incident was only the
provocation for the next incident and it is incorrect to say that two incidents
are in the nature of case and counter case. The former incident was only the
motive for the later incident and in these circumstances the petitioners may
not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.
5. I find force in the submissions of the learned Prosecutor. I do not
find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the
extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This I am
satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and
B.A.No. 6216 of 2007′ 3
normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary
course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if
the petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction 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