IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2008 / 14TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7959 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.528/07 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION : PETITIONERS 1-14/ACCUSED 1-14 --------------------------------------------- 1. KAPPIL MOHAMMED PASHA, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KAPPIL ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT GREEN VILLAGE, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.M.NAFIR, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. K.M.MOIDU, RESIDING AT K.M.HOUSE, THRIKKANAD, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. ASHRAF, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT KAPPIL HOUSE, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. K.M.THARIF, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT THIDIL HOUSE, KOTTIKULAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. B.S.SHAMEER, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SHAFI, RESIDING AT KUNNIRIYATH MANZIL, KOTTIKULAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. ASHRAF, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT KAPPIL HOUSE, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. K.B.M.SHAREEF, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT SUNABIL VILLA, KAPPIL, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 8. FAZALUDDIN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. MANHYA, RESIDING AT KAPPIL HOUSE, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED, MUKKUNNOTH HOUSE, BARA P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. Bail Appl..No. 7959 of 2007 - 2 - 10. ASHRAFF, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. MOIDU, RESIDING AT PAKIYARA HOUSE, UDMA, KASARAGOD DIST. 11. P.A.KUNHAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. P.A.ABDULLA, RESIDING AT PAKIYARA HOUSE, UDMA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 12. JAMSHEED, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT KARIPODI HOUSE, KOTTIKULAM, BEKAL P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 13. RAFI, S/O. HUSSAINAR, AGED 18 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAKIYARA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.7959 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 1 to 4. They face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 436 r/w 149 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place on 10.12.07. Crime has been registered on the very same day. All the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. Petitioners were allegedly members of an unlawful assembly of persons. They, in prosecution of their common object, had allegedly trespassed into a building in which the defacto complainant was running a printing press as a tenant. Petrol was poured and the building was set afire causing extensive damage to the building. The defacto complainant had not witnessed the occurrence. On the basis of information collected by him, he had lodged the F.I statement naming the petitioners herein as accused. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. False and vexatious B.A.No.7959 of 2007 2 allegations are being raised against the petitioners on account of political animosity. Some of the petitioners who owed allegiance to the C.P.M had crossed over and had left the party. On account of such animosity, totally false allegations are being raised against the petitioners. They may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail and saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and incarceration. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications clearly show that the building was set afire by the miscreants. Available indications further show that the petitioners were responsible for commission of the said crime. It is true that there is strain between 2 groups in the locality. But there is absolutely nothing to jump to a conclusion that the allegations raised in the crime are false or vexatious. In these circumstances the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail would hamper the smooth course of investigation. The petitioners may be directed to resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of seeking regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . B.A.No.7959 of 2007 3 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The case diary has been perused by me. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case that can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied is, a fit case where the petitioners must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the Investigating Officer and then seek bail in the regular and ordinary course. 5. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply 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 and expeditiously. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge