IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 525 of 2008() ---------------------------- CR.NO.293/2007 OF POOCHACKAL POLICE STATION .................... : PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. KARUNAKARA PANICKER, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, KALIYATH NIKARTH, WARD NO.III, PERUMBALAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. LEKSHMI DEVI, W/O. KARUNAKARA PANICKER, AGED 39 YEARS, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS/DEFACT0 COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------- 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 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- B.A.No.525 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners/spouses are accused 1 and 2. They face allegations in a crime registered under Section 326 I.P.C. The victim in the case is the sister of the first petitioner. She was allegedly attacked with a dangerous weapon, a wooden stick by the first accused. The second accused had only, even allegedly, showered abuses at the scene of the crime. The dispute between the parties allegedly arose out of the objection raised by the victim against consumption of alcohol by the first petitioner near her house. The alleged incident took place on 25/11/2007. The F.I.S was lodged only on 13/12/2007. The victim was discharged from the hospital after treatment on 5/12/2007. She explains the delay in lodging the F.I.statement to be on the ground that there was an attempt of mediation before that day. Only after she was discharged, she came to know of the need to lodge a complaint herself before the police. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. B.A.No.525/08 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. The first petitioner, after having suffered a fall from a coconut tree sometime back, is disabled and false and vexatious allegations are being raised against both accused persons. The petitioners may now be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor, after taking instructions and after perusing the case diary, does not oppose the prayer of the second accused/wife for anticipatory bail. Appropriate conditions may be imposed, it is prayed. But so far as the claim for anticipatory bail of the first accused is concerned, the application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the F.I.statement was lodged only on 13/12/2007, the victim had told the doctor, before whom she was taken on the very next day, that she had suffered the injuries because of an assault. Tell tale injuries (fracture) is also seen suffered by the victim, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. In these circumstances, merely because of the lapse of time or because of the unfortunate accident suffered by the first accused earlier and his consequent alleged disability, I am not B.A.No.525/08 3 persuaded to agree that the first petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. I find no features in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C in favour of the first petitioner. 5. In the result, this petition insofar as it relates to the first petitioner is dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or 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 appropriate orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. The petitioner, needless to say, shall be entitled to request the learned Magistrate to invoke the discretion under Section 437 Cr.P.C infavour of sick,infirm and disabled persons. The application must be considered on merits. 6. Following directions are issued in favour of the second petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. i) Petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 07/02/2008. She shall be released on regular bail on condition that she executes a bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the B.A.No.525/08 4 learned Magistrate. ii) The petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation before the investigating officer between 10 a.m and 3 p.m on 08/02/2008. During this period, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps for the proper conduct of the investigation in this crime. Thereafter the petitioner shall so appear as and when directed by the investigating officer in writing to do so. (iii) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law, as if these directions were not issued at all. (iv) If she were arrested prior to 07/02/2008, she shall be released from custody on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) without any sureties, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 07/02/2008. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) B.A.No.525/08 5 jsr B.A.No.525/08 6 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007