IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 919 of 2008() ---------------------------- C.CNO.7843/2007 ON THE FILE OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE'S COURT, SAIDAPET AT MADRAS ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. NAJEEB V.H,VARIKKADAN HOUSE 2079 A 5961,NR FIRE STATION PERUMBAVOOR, COCHIN 683 542. 2. FATHIMA, VARIKKADAN HOUSE 2079 A 5961,NR FIRE STATION PERUMBAVOOR, COCHIN 683 542. BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH.K RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 919 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners have a definite case that they are threatened of arrest and detention in execution of a non-bailable warrant issued by a Court in Tamil Nadu. They, it is alleged, have been specifically informed that C.C. 784 of 2007 of Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, Madras is pending against them and they are required to be arrested in connection with that crime. 2. Notice was given to the learned Prosecutor. After taking instructions, the learned Prosecutor submits that no such warrant has ever been received. The petitioner asserted that such a warrant is stated to be in the hands of the respondent and the respondent has threatened them with arrest in execution of such warrant. Dissatisfied with the stand taken by the respondent, the respondent was directed to appear in person and explain the allegations to the court. It is now submitted categorically that the B.A.No. 919 of 2008 2 petitioners are not required to be arrested in connection with any crime. No warrant has been received from any court by the respondent to arrest the petitioners. They shall not be arrested, it is undertaken. 3. The circumstances arouse suspicion in my mind as to how and why the petitioners should assert that they are threatened of arrest in execution of non-bailable warrant. When probed further, the learned Prosecutor submits that M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. has made a complaint to the respondent making allegations against the petitioners. No crime has been registered in respect of that crime also. Putting two and two together and attempting to read between the lines, the grievance of the petitioners appears to me to be reasonable and their apprehension appears to be justified. I am in these circumstances satisfied that the undertaking of the learned Prosecutor that the petitioners are not required to be arrested and shall not be arrested can be accepted. They shall not be called to the police station also by the respondent without taking further directions from this Court. 4. This petition is dismissed, accepting the undertaking of the learned Prosecutor and with the specific direction that if hereafter the B.A.No. 919 of 2008 3 petitioners were required to be arrested or called to the police station for any reason whatsoever, the respondent shall take prior permission of this Court before doing the same. This direction may not fall strictly within the four walls of Section 438 Cr.P.C. But I am satisfied that I will be justified in invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and/or Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue this direction in the peculiar facts of the case. (R. BASANT) Judge tm B.A.No. 919 of 2008 4 R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 919 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of February, 2008 O R D E R The learned Prosecutor re-iterates the assertion that the petitioners are not required to be arrested in execution of any process issued by any court or as accused in any crime. The learned counsel for the petitioners, on the contrary, submits that the second respondent has even on Saturday called the petitioners over phone and wanted payments to be effected and the dispute to be settled and had threatened that the petitioners shall be arrested. 2. The learned Prosecutor undertakes that the petitioners shall not be arrested by the respondents till the next date of posting. The second respondent shall appear in person and file a statement as to whether the petitioners are required to be arrested in CC 7843 of 2007 B.A.No. 919 of 2008 5 of Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, Madras and whether any warrant has ever been received from any court to arrest and produce the petitioners herein. Such statement shall be filed by 21.2.08. Call on 22.2.08. (R. BASANT) tm Judge