IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 47 of 2008() --------------------------- CRIME NO.902/07 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------- RAJESHKUMAR, S/O.MOHANDAS, PUNJAPPADATH HOUSE, KANALPALAM, ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENTS: ------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 47 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. Altogether, there are 4 accused persons. Accused Nos.3 and 4 had come before this Court with an application for anticipatory bail and this Court by an order dated 12/12/07 in B.A.No.7445/07 dismissed the said application. Facts have been adverted to in detail in the said order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. I am hence not adverting to the facts in any greater detail in this order. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant, who owed amounts to various persons, was absconding. He could not be traced. The petitioner was allegedly abducted in an attempt to ascertain the whereabouts of his brother-in-law. In pursuance of prior B.A. No. 47 OF 2008 -: 2 :- concert between the accused, the petitioner herein directed the de facto complainant to contact the 1st accused. The 1st accused promised to give him certain amounts by way of financial assistance. He was asked to be available at a particular place. From there, as per the prior design, a group of miscreants, including accused 3 and 4, allegedly abducted the de facto complainant and subjected him to physical assault and confinement in an attempt to extricate from him the information about the whereabouts of his brother-in-law. This, in short, is the allegation. The petitioner's name appears in the First Information Statement; but no specific allegations are made against him. When the victim was traced, he gave a version in which the complicity of the petitioner is revealed. The confession statement of the 1st accused also reveals the involvement of the petitioner herein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. False and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner with an attempt to harass him. The petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the mere fact that B.A. No. 47 OF 2008 -: 3 :- the complicity of the petitioner is not narrated in detail in the First Information Statement by the informant is of no avail and can deliver no advantage to the petitioner herein. The victim, as soon as he was traced and questioned, had made allegations against the petitioner. The confession statement of the 1st accused also indicates the complicity of the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail. He may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the ordinary course, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having considered all the relevant inputs – I have perused the Case Diary, I am satisfied that there is merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am unable to perceive any features in this case which can justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the B.A. No. 47 OF 2008 -: 4 :- Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks 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) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge