IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 641 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 16/08 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 31, PERISSERY HOUSE, PERUMANNA AMSOM, PUTHOOR DESOM, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 641 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. There are three injured persons in the case. The alleged incident took place on 18.1.2008. The crux of the allegations is that when the local people obstructed to the illicit removal of sand and informed the police, the first accused/driver of the lorry attempted to drive the lorry into the crowd of people, resulting in injuries to three persons. They did not, of course, suffer any grievous injuries, but all of them have suffered injuries. The petitioner, along with some others, was available in the vehicle. There is an allegation that the petitioner belongs to an organised group of persons, who indulged in the offence of illicit removal of sand. There are earlier cases registered against the petitioner, it is alleged. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner has not been arrested yet. B.A.No. 641 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. The police are interested in making false allegations against the petitioner with the sole purpose of vexing and harassing him. One crime has already been registered and the petitioner has been enlarged on bail. Allegations were raised that the petitioner was subjected to brutal man handling by the police. Proceedings in that case is pending. The petitioner is directed to report before the Investigating Officer. He has been faithfully reporting before the Investigating Officer in pursuance of the direction of this court. It is in this context that the present allegation has been raised. Writ Petition was also filed for return of the seized sand. That proceedings is also pending. The allegation of police harassment is raised in that writ petition also, points out the counsel. The learned counsel, in these circumstances, prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner and the prospect of his going into police custody may be avoided. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations are well founded. There is no reason at this stage to jump to the conclusion that the allegations are false or are raised with vexatious intent. The victims have suffered injuries. The B.A.No. 641 of 2008 3 statement of the injured witnesses have been recorded. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek bail. If necessary custody shall be sought after the petitioner surrenders before the learned Magistrate, reports the learned Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find absolutely no 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. At the same time, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued, which will enable the petitioner to surrender before the learned Magistrate and go into police custody if necessary and if so authorised by the learned Magistrate only through court. 5. In the result: (1) This application is allowed in part. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 11.2.2008 at 11 a.m. He may file application for regular B.A.No. 641 of 2008 4 bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the learned Prosecutor in charge of the case. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate expeditiously on the application of the petitioner and on any other application, which the police may file, and pass appropriate orders thereon. The petitioner shall abide by the orders which the learned Magistrate may pass on such application. (b) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 11.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. (c) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 11.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 11.2.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm