IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6309 of 2009 PETITIONER -------------------- JOSEPH,S/O.CHACKO, CHIRAKKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHAYPANKUZHI,KUTTICHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNTHAPURAM TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PERINTHALMANNA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Apprehending arrest by Perinthalmanna Police on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence, the petitioner has filed this application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 4.11.2009, the following order was passed: “The petitioner apprehends arrest by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perinthalmanna or by any of his subordinates on an accusation of having committed non- bailable offence on the basis of a petition filed by one Mr.Jose, S/o.Poulose. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that Mr.Jose had filed a petition before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In order to verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, the Police directed the petitioner to appear. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner failed to appear. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner appeared before the Police on two occasions, on those occasions, the B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009 :: 2 :: Deputy Superintendent of Police was not available in the Police Station. It is not necessary to resolve this dispute in this Bail Application. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M on 9th and 10th November, 2009. Post on 17.11.2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders. The petitioner shall produce copy of this order before the investigating officer.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has complied with the direction in the order dated 4.11.2009. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner has stated the relevant facts before the investigating officer and that on the basis of the information supplied, it was thought that there is no necessity to register a crime in the case. Therefore, there is no intention to arrest the petitioner. This submission is recorded. B.A. NO. 6309 OF 2009 :: 3 :: The Bail Application is accordingly closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again as and when occasion arises. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/