IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4369 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.491/08 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- SAJRAM, 39 YEARS S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, R/A.KARUMANTHRA HOUSE, EDAKULAM,POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4369 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 399 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, five persons were found near a temple in suspicious circumstance and on questioning them, three of them ran away. Accused 1 to 3 were arrested from the spot. From their possession, chilly powder, gloves and knife were seized. Persons who ran away are accused 2, 3 and 5. Petitioner is the 5th accused. The incident happened on 18.5.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the local Circle Inspector of Police has been harassing the petitioner at the instance of a prominent financing group of the locality known as “Kallada Group”. Petitioner is residing in his house with his wife, children and his aged mother. His mother is a retired Headmistress. Petitioner's father was a reputed businessman and he is no more. Petitioner's wife is a teacher in a nearby school. Petitioner was working abroad for nine years and he started real-estate business, after coming back to India. He is also engaged in private money BA.4369/08 2 lending business. He lends money at lesser rate of interest than what was received by the other financing group in the locality. On several occasions the henchmen of the financing company demanded the petitioner to stop the business and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. But the petitioner continued to do the business and it provoked the “Kallada Group” and they influenced the Circle Inspector, who insisted to wind up his business and he was threatened that he would be taught a lesson. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also falsely implicated in a series of cases under Section 402 IPC, Section 324 IPC etc. In an offence committed in the temple premises, petitioner's name was also included deliberately but it was subsequently compounded before the Lok Adalath. The petitioner is not able to peacefully live in the locality because of the harassment of the Circle Inspector, who is falsely implicating the petitioner in various crimes, it is submitted. 5. The petitioner's mother filed a complaint, Annexure A2, before the Superintendent of Police on 5.4.2008, narrating the alleged harassment from the police at the instance of the Circle Inspector. Annexure A3 is the another complaint filed against police harassment before the Superintendent of Police on 17.4.2008 by the petitioner's mother. On 21.5.2008 also, two days after the alleged incident in this case, she lodged a complaint before the BA.4369/08 3 Superintendent of Police and the copy of the same is Annexure A4. It is specifically stated therein that on the date on which the incident is allegedly occurred, the petitioner was very much present in the house, since there was a dinner in connection with the arrival of the petitioner's elder brother from Gulf on that day. Throughout the day, the petitioner was resent in the house but there was an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present crime. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is only the victim of the animosity of a financing group and false cases are registered against him by influencing the Circle Inspector of Police. Petitioner was not even present at the scene and the petitioner was not arrested also. In case he is arrested, it is likely that he will be tortured at the police station. It is also submitted that after filing the first complaint, Annexure A2, signed blank papers were obtained from the petitioner's mother, who was approached by the Circle Inspector for compelling her to withdraw the earlier complaint. These facts are stated in Annexure A3. 7. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made are all incorrect and no complaints are received against the Circle Inspector of Police. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is not a case where anticipatory bail can be granted. It may not be proper to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C., it is submitted. But the BA.4369/08 4 learned counsel for petitioner produced for perusal a receipt to show that Annexure A4 was received by the Superintendent of Police on 21.5.2008. In Annexure A4, a reference is made regarding the complaints given by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police on 5.4.2008 and 17.4.2008 also (Annexures A2 and A3). 8. On hearing both sides and going through the documents produced in this case, I am satisfied that on the facts of this case, the failure to grant anticipatory bail will result in serious harm and injury to the petitioner. It is only just and proper that the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail and hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and if any bail application is moved, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.