IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 5858 of 2007()
1. T.P.ZAKEER, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIDANADU.
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :01/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.5858 of 2007
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of October 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces
allegations in a crime registered under Section 353 I.P.C. The
petitioner had allegedly obstructed the discharge of official
duties by revenue officials who were engaged in the activity of
detecting/preventing illicit transportation of river sand. A lorry
was intercepted by the revenue officials. The driver of the lorry
took the key from the officials and attempted to speed away. The
officials wanted to chase the lorry and apprehend the driver.
The petitioner was the driver of the lorry. The investigation is in
progress. In the F.I.R, the petitioner has not been named.
Subsequent investigation revealed the identity of the petitioner
as the accused person and he has been brought on the array of
accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner
apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The petitioner was not the
driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. The petitioner is the
B.A.No.5858/07 2
husband of the owner of the lorry, a woman. The petitioner had
only helped the police to get the lorry in question. The driver
was asked to surrender the lorry by the petitioner. False and
fanciful allegations are raised against the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it
is prayed.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there
are no circumstances whatsoever to justify the invocation of the
equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The police have
absolutely no reason to make false allegations against the
petitioner. The allegations are true. Investigation has revealed
the truth of the allegation. The petitioner has to be arrested and
interrogated. It is not necessary at all to permit the petitioner to
arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail at this stage. The
petition may be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to
surrender before the investigating officer or the learned
Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No.5858/07 3
4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit
in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find
any circumstances in this case which would justify invocation of
the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case
where the petitioners must appear before the investigating
officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then
seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.
5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to
say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer
or 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 appropriate orders
on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
// True Copy// PA to Judge
B.A.No.5858/07 4
B.A.No.5858/07 5
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007