IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND MAY 2008 / 12TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2235 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.364/06 OF NOORANADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED ------------------------ SAMJOHN, S/O.K.S.JOY KIZHAKKEYATTATHUPUTHEN VEEDU, THANNIKKUNNEL VETTIYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME DETACHMENT, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2235 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest as accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.452 and 307 of the IPC. The alleged incident took place on 30/10/06. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. Only the 1st accused is named. Altogether, there is reference to 4 accused persons. The petitioner was alleged to be the one of the miscreants. As per an interim direction issued on 10/4/08, the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that the investigation reveals that the petitioner is the 4th accused. The de facto complainant has suffered very serious injuries. The incident is a sequel to the earlier disputes between the parties in connection with a prosecution B.A. No. 2235 of 2008 -: 2 :- under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the interim order dated 10/4/08, even though the petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer, he was not arrested. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He is unnecessarily arrayed as an accused. The de facto complainant admits before the petitioner that he has no grievance against the petitioner. Investigating Officer is cooking up a false case against the petitioner on account of extraneous reasons. It is prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation clearly reveals that the petitioner is one of the 4 miscreants who had committed offence. In these circumstances, the petitioner has to be arrested. The petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. 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 Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the normal and usual course of B.A. No. 2235 of 2008 -: 3 :- appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. If the petitioner has a serious contention that the de facto complainant has no grievance against the petitioner, that aspect can be pleaded and established satisfactorily before the court which considers the petitioner's application for regular bail. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the 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 B.A. No. 2235 of 2008 -: 4 :-