IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7522 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.369 OF 2008 OF THE VENJARAMOODU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): (12TH ACCUSED): ---------------------------------------------------- K.S. ABHILASH, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, K.S. COTTAGE, NELLANADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.R.RAJESH, DMY.S.K.PREETHA. RESPONDENT(S): (COMPLAINANT): --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PRSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7522 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 427, 353, 332, 333 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, workers of C.P.I.(M) were conducting a procession in Thiruvananthapuram in connection with a teacher's death. In the course of the same, boards, banners, etc. of B.J.P. were destroyed. Therefore, a protest procession was conducted by the B.J.P. and anticipating some untoward incident, police officials intervened. The Circle Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police and a Police Constable were assaulted by B.J.P. workers. A Police Constable sustained a fracture to the rib and the accused allegedly committed various offences. Petitioner is the 12th accused. His bike was used for the offence and it was seized from the premises of the office of B.J.P. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has not committed any offence. He sold the motor cycle in favour of 5th accused, as per Annexure-B sale agreement. The 5th accused was in the jail at that time and hence, petitioner, who is the BA 7522/08 -2- registered owner, is falsely implicated in the offence on the premise that the motor cycle was found near the B.J.P. office. As per Annexure-D report, petitioner is implicated as 12th accused as the R.C. owner of the vehicle. The 5th accused filed a petition under section 451 Cr.P.C. claiming the vehicle, on the strength of Annexure-B document. Petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that if petitioner surrenders before the police, petitioner will be tortured at the police station, since police officials themselves are the alleged victims and it will result in great injustice, especially since he is innocent of the allegations made. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that several accused were arrested in connection with this crime and on interrogation, it is revealed that petitioner was also involved in the offence. Their statements were also recorded. Petitioner is required for interrogation to find out the truth. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that police officials were assaulted and an attempt was made to commit murder by using weapons. Fracture was also caused to a Police Constable . BA 7522/08 -3- 5. On hearing both sides, considering the facts submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied that this is a case where petitioner's interrogation may be required to ascertain the facts, which are within his exclusive knowledge. Hence, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. Serious nature of the allegations were made also does not persuade me to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. 6. However, I make it clear that considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are different from considerations for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is at liberty to take up the same contentions, while he files an application, if any, under section 437 Cr.P.C. in which event the learned Magistrate shall consider those contentions, on merit and dispose of the application, untrammelled by any of the observations if any, made in this order. Refusal of anticipatory bail by itself is not a ground to refuse bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. However, petitioner is bound to surrender to law. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with BA 7522/08 -4- the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.