IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 559 of 2008()
1. THOMAS @ PAPPACHAN, S/O. THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :31/01/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
B.A.No.559 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of January 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the sole
accused in a crime registered under Section 452 I.P.C. The crux
of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had trespassed
into the residential building of the de facto complainant at 10
p.m on 19/01/2008 having made preparations to commit
offences. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in
progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to him,
allegations are being raised vexatiously. He is actually the
victim of aggression and not the offender. A counter case has
been registered also. Copy of the F.I.R in the counter case has
been produced as Annexure 1.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
application. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The
perusal of the F.I.R in the counter case clearly shows that even
the petitioner in the F.I.statement concedes that he had gone
into the house of the de facto complainant on that night –
obviously for the purpose of questioning the de facto
B.A.No.559/08 2
complainant for certain alleged conduct of his.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner hastens to submit
that the said F.I.statement has not been correctly recorded and the
petitioner has already made objections against the improper
recording in the F.I.statement in that case. Be that as it may, I shall
not embark on a detailed discussion about the acceptability of the
allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say
that after considering all the relevant inputs I am unable to
perceive any features 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 petitioner 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.559/08 3
B.A.No.559/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.CNo.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF MAY2007