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. 8009 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 507/07 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- PRABHU MOHANDAS S/O. MOHANDAS, THOZITTALI VEEDU, PALLICKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE 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. 8009 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 120B and 367 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the 7th accused had animus against the defacto complainant, who runs a poultry shop. When he was returning to his house after closing his shop, he was fraudulently induced to return to the shop on the basis of a demand for a large quantity of chicken immediately. While he, along with a relative of his, proceeding to the poultry shop, six persons, who came in a car allegedly driven by the petitioner, forcibly took them into the car and drove away. Enroute the miscreants assaulted the victims. They were taken to an isolated area, where they were let off. At that place the 7th accused is alleged to have been waiting for the car to reach. In the F.I. statement only the 7th accused is named. He was arrested and interrogated. His interrogation revealed the B.A.No. 8009 of 2007 2 complicity of the co-accused, including the petitioner herein. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even if the entire allegations were accepted, the petitioner was only driving the car. The petitioner was also fraudulently induced to believe that a sick person had to be carried to the hospital. It was in that belief that the petitioner was innocently driving the car. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that it would be puerile at this stage to swallow the convenient explanation offered by the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner driving the vehicle to an isolated place, where the 7th accused was waiting, even when the victims were forcibly taken and assaulted in the car, reveals his complicity. At any rate, this is not a fit case where petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. It is prayed that the petition may be dismissed and the petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate. B.A.No. 8009 of 2007 3 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I agree with the learned Prosecutor that the convenient version advanced by the petitioner cannot at this stage entitle the petitioner to 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 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) tm Judge B.A.No. 8009 of 2007 4