IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2631 of 2008() ------------------------- CRIME NO.303/08 OF THE ADIMALY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ------------ RAMANATHAN.V.P.@ RAMANANDA SWAMIKAL, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLA, 44 YEARS, VANIYAPPILIL, MEMURI PO., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADIMALY 3. T.K.SHAJI, THOPPIL VEEDU, ADIMALY PO., 4. C.D.SHAJI, 38 YEARS, STANDING COMMITREE CHAIRMAN, ADIMALY PANCHAYAT 5. MATHEW PHILIP, PULOR MADHAVAM, 200 ACRE, ADIMALY. 6. BOSE JOHN, MEMBER ADIMALY PANCHAYAT, AAIYKAL VEEDU, MANNAMKALA , ADIMALY. 7. BINOY JOSEPH, VATTAPPARA PUTHEN VEETTIL, 8. BIJU, 35 YEARS,PANACHIKKAL, PRIYADARSHINI COLONY,ADIMALY. 9. KAMARUDDIN, 42 YEARS, KAMKO JN., ADIMALY ......2 -: 2 :- 10. SUDESH CHATTUPARA @ AMBADY, ADIMALY. 11. SHAJU, 35 YEARS, MULLAMKUDI BARBER, ADIMALY. 12. JABBAR, 38 YEARS, KALAPPURAKAL, ADIMALY 13. NEELESH, VARFAVUKALAYIL, SABIN, ADIMALY 14. NAVAS, KANDAMCHIRA, ADIMALY 15. PRAKASHAN, 27 YEARS, PAZHAYA ROAD, ADIMALY. 16. JIJOY, 31 YEARS, CHEMBOTHINKAL ADIMALY 17. SANJU KOCHERIL, AMBALAPPADY, ADIMALY. 18. SRIJESH, 28 YEARS, VAZHAYIL VEEDU, NEAR MUSLIM PALLI, ADIMALY. 19. SULPHIKAR, 35 YEARS, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, ADIMALY. 20. SEBASTIN, 34 YEARS, ADIMALY. 21. SUNIL ELIMATTATHIL , ADIMALY 22. AJENDRAN, TRIBAL PROMTER, CHINNAPPARA- KUDY, ADIMALY. 23. SANTHOSH, AUTO DRIVER, VALARA, ADIMALY 24. MANI, 35 YEARS, KOOMBANPARA KAVALA, 200 ACRE,ADIMALY. 25. EBI, 23 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER, KAMCO JN., ADIMALY. 26. NISSAR, PERAKKUDI VEEDU,ADIMALY 27. RASHEED, 28 YEARS, AUTO DRIVER PRIYADARSHINI COLONY ADIMALY 28. BIJU, KURISINKAL, ADIMALY BY P.P. SRI. AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2631 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the de facto complainant who has allegedly suffered assault and ignominy at the hands of a group of persons. The petitioner claims to be a spiritual leader who has been deliberately insulted, annoyed and assaulted by a group of persons belonging to a particular political party in power. On a complaint filed by the petitioner, an FIR was registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.395 of the IPC. The accused persons, the petitioner complains, were arrested and instantaneously released on bail. They are continuing their objectionable, contumacious and culpable conduct. The petitioner – a citizen, left with no alternative, has come to this Court to complain about the incorrect grant of bail to the accused persons. This petition is Crl.M.C. No.2631 of 2008 -: 2 :- described to be one under Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. complaining about the improper release on bail of the accused persons. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police have not conducted any proper investigation; but only to facilitate grant of bail to the accused persons, immediately after the registration of the crime, a report has been filed deleting the non-bailable offence alleged against the accused. In these circumstances, the police have conveniently released the accused persons on bail. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the powers under Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. may be invoked to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. 3. A careful and detailed consideration of the averments and the facts scenario in this case reveal that the grievance is really not about the grant of bail to the accused persons; but against the incorrect and improper procedure adopted by the police officials to favour the accused persons. The offences alleged against the accused now pending investigation are all bailable and therefore there cannot and need be resort to the provisions Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. 4. A careful examination of the averments show that actually the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged improper Crl.M.C. No.2631 of 2008 -: 3 :- conduct of the investigation. The petitioner laments that the allegations under Sec.395 IPC have unceremoniously been dropped only to help the accused persons. 5. I must alertly remind myself of the decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008 (1) KLT 724 (SC)). That decision is authority for the proposition that a person aggrieved by the quality of investigation like the petitioner herein cannot rush to this Court with an application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India or Sec.482 Cr.P.C. He must exhaust his equally efficacious remedy which is available to him under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The said decision has been later followed by Vasanthi Devi v. S.I. of Police (2008 (1) KLT 945). 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that even an order of bail granted under Sec.436 Cr.P.C. may not be outside the sweep of Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. and in a proper case this Court does have jurisdiction under Sec.439(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted under Sec.436 Cr.P.C. also. I agree. But compelling, exceptional and out of the ordinary reasons must certainly be shown to exist before this Court to justify cancellation of the bail granted in a bailable offence under Crl.M.C. No.2631 of 2008 -: 4 :- Sec.436 Cr.P.C. I am not persuaded to agree that there is any such reason to justify the cancellation of the bail already granted in a bailable offence in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge