IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 991 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.76/08 OF THRIKKAKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ DEEPAK P.SUKUMARAN, S/O. SUKUMARAN, PALAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERYMUKAL, KANGARAPPADY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 991 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.365 read with Sec.34 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place on 30/1/08 in the morning. A complaint has been filed on the same day later. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. Accused 1 and 2 are the brothers-in-law. Accused No.3 is the brother of the 2nd accused. Between the victim and the 1st accused there were certain financial transactions. The 1st accused was insisting that the victim must discharge the said liability. The victim was induced to go to an Advocate to talk over the matter. The victim went there along with his friend – the de facto complainant. Before they could get into the premises of the Advocate, the victim was B.A. No. 991 OF 2008 -: 2 :- allegedly abducted by the accused persons including the petitioner in the car of the victim. He was assaulted inside the car. He was forcibly deterred and taken to places in an attempt to compel him to agree to terms. The victim was left free later. Investigation is in progress. The 1st accused has already been arrested. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The 1st accused and the victim were, according to the petitioner, allegedly detained by those to whom amount was due. On coming to know that they were detained by such financiers, the petitioner had gone to the place of detention to ensure the release of the victim and the 1st accused. The petitioner arranged finances and secured their release. Thereafter, discussions were held and arrangements were stuck between the victim and the 1st accused regarding sharing of the liability. There was no element of any abduction, detention or illegal confinement. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be granted, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications suggest clearly that there was illegal and culpable abduction and confinement of the victim. His friend – the de B.A. No. 991 OF 2008 -: 3 :- facto complainant, had narrated the entire incident promptly to the police. Later, after his release, the victim was also questioned and his version confirms that of the de facto complainant. In any view of the matter, there is no circumstance warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. In the nature of the contentions raised, the learned Public Prosecutor was requested to place the Case Diary before me for my perusal after flagging the relevant pages. I have gone through the Case Diary. At this early stage of the investigation, I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussions on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am in agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor that there are no features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the B.A. No. 991 OF 2008 -: 4 :- usual and ordinary course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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 and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge