IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 1520 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.44/08 OF IRIKKOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. PETITIONERS : APPLICANTS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. AHAMED BAPPAN, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI MAHASOMA MANZIL, ANANGODE, KASARAGODE. 2. ABDUL SAMAD, S/O. ABOOBACKER AMINA MANZIL, MEPURGIRI,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM REPREWENTING S.I. OF POLICE IRIKKOOR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1520 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 and 3. Altogether, there are 7 accused persons – one (A1) named and 6 others. The crime has been registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Secs.452 and 395 of the IPC. The alleged incident occurred on 23/2/08 at about 11 a.m. The de facto complainant is the uncle of the named 1st accused. There has been a long standing fued and civil disputes and litigations between them. The 1st accused was employed abroad. According to the 1st accused, the de facto complainant had taken with him certain important documents from the family house and he was keeping the same in his possession. The 1st accused wanted to wrest all those documents. He, while he was employed abroad, contacted A2 B.A. No. 1520 of 2008 -: 2 :- and a conspiracy was hatched to take away the documents by use of force from the possession of the de facto complainant. A2 made necessary arrangements. As per the prior instructions of the 1st accused, he came in a car along with the other miscreants to the house of the 1st accused on a day chosen by A1. That was a day when there was some festival in the locality and it was expected that except the de facto complainant, no other persons will be available in the house. All the accused persons, including the 1st accused, and the petitioners herein allegedly went to the house of the de facto complainant. A1 wanted the de facto complainant to give some water. When the de facto complainant went inside, all the accused entered the house and closed it from inside. They assaulted and belaboured the de facto complainant. The 1st accused went away. The other accused forcibly took away the documents from the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was coerced, threatened and intimidated to affix his signature/thumb impression on some documents. Thereafter the other accused went away from the scene. A1 allegedly held out to the world that these persons had come to his house to attend the local festival. The crime was registered. In the course of investigation, the 1st accused was arrested. He was interrogated after his arrest. That is how the complicity of the petitioners i.e., A2 and A3 was B.A. No. 1520 of 2008 -: 3 :- ascertained. The identity of the other accused has not been ascertained yet. The petitioners have to be interrogated for a complete and satisfactory resolution of the crime. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The petitioners were not available in the locality on the relevant date. There are documents which would indicate that A2 had gone to Bangalore to effect certain purchase in connection with his business. False and vexatious allegations have been raised against the petitioners. They may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that all the available indications convincingly point to the complicity of the petitioners and, at any rate, there are no circumstances which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I find merit in the submission that A2 and A3 have to be arrested and custodialy interrogated to ascertain all the relevant details including the identity of the co-accused. Arming the petitioners B.A. No. 1520 of 2008 -: 4 :- with orders of anticipatory bail would hamper the smooth course of the investigation. The petitioners 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. I find merit in the opposition. I find no features in this case which can persuade me to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioners, I am satisfied, must appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek 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