IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 20 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO. 166/07 OF KARIMKUNNAM POLICE STATION CRMP.5283/2007 of DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ JOMON, S/O. GEORGE, CHUNDAKKATTIL @ THANNIMALAYIL HOUSE, KARAMALA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 20 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Section 379 I.P.C. The alleged theft took place on 30.10.2007. F.I.R. was registered only on 10.11.2007. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The defacto complainant raised an allegation that 38 plantain bunches of his in a garden taken on lease by him were clandestinely cut and removed on the night of 30.10.2007. There was no clue as to who had committed the crime. The defacto complainant allegedly made discrete enquiries. The doubts were revetted on a lady and her husband residing near the scene of the crime. The lady came out with a belated version that the petitioner was the one who allegedly removed the plantain bunches on that night. She had seen him when she had come out of the house to answer the calls of the nature on that night. She B.A.No. 20 of 2008 2 did not reveal the information to any one. But later when people started complaining about her and her husband, she was forced to reveal that information. On receipt of that information the defacto complainant had filed a formal complaint before the police. It is thereupon that the investigation started. The petitioner is absconding. He is not available for interrogation. Investigation conducted by the police confirms the suspicion against the petitioner. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigator and explain the circumstances against him. He will be arrested only if such interrogation reveals the necessity and requirement of arresting him. At the moment there is serious doubts arise against him from the totality of circumstances, including the statement given by the neighbouring woman. The petitioner may be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and to co-operate with the investigators, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier questioned by the police. The police had compelled him to B.A.No. 20 of 2008 3 pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the defacto complainant As the petitioner was not responsible for the commission of the offence, he was not willing to pay the amount. The petitioner now apprehends vexatious arrest for the reason that the petitioner had not complied with the advice of the police officer. 5. In the nature of the contentions raised, the learned Prosecutor was requested to make the case diary available for my perusal. I have perused the same. I find that the Investigator has been making serious efforts to resolve the misery of the crime. The needle of suspicion is against the petitioner. I agree with the Prosecutor that it is not necessary at all at this stage to permit the petitioner to arm himself with an order or anticipatory bail before he faces such interrogation by the police. The petitioner has the option to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate if he so chooses. I am not, at any rate, satisfied that there any 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. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary B.A.No. 20 of 2008 4 and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before 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 orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm