IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2008 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2170 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.142/08 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION : PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO --------------------------------------- PRADEEP @ KANNAN, PARAYADI VEEDU, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SMT.K.BINEESHA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2170 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the sole accused. He faces allegations for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 452 I.P.C. That is the only non bailable offence alleged. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner entertained animosity against the defacto complainant whose entry into the staff of a shop had resulted in the petitioner losing his job in that shop. The alleged incident took place on 22.02.08. The petitioner is alleged to have trespassed into the shop room and indulged in acts of violence and mischief. The shop has suffered damage and such damage is clearly revealed from the scene mahazar, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any view of the matter there are no elements of the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. The defacto complainant is closely related to a police official and because of such influence, false and vexatious allegations are being raised against the petitioner. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. B.A.No.2170 of 2008 2 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there are no features available in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The scene of the crime bears telltale indications of trespass and indulgence in violent and mischievous acts. The allegation of the non bailable offence is only under Section 452 I.P.C. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. I do not, in these circumstances, find any reasons to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. But I take note of the apprehension aired by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the defacto complainant is closely related to a senior police official, the petitioner apprehends physical harm if he were to go into the police custody except through court, if necessary. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to surrender before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate may be directed to expeditiously consider the bail application to be filed by the B.A.No.2170 of 2008 3 petitioner or any other application to be filed by the investigator. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the investigator has already approached the learned Magistrate with a request that the petitioner may not be granted regular bail when he surrenders. 6. After considering all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied, that though the petitioner is not entitled for specific direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of bail, the petitioner can be given an opportunity to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail with sufficient specifications. 7. In the result, this Bail Application is allowed in part. The following directions are issued: i) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction at 11 a.m on 15.04.08; ii) The petitioner may file an application for regular bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case; iii) The learned Magistrate must consider the application for regular bail to be filed by the petitioner and application, if any, filed by the investigator and pass appropriate orders on merits on all such applications expeditiously; B.A.No.2170 of 2008 4 iv) The petitioner shall thereafter abide by only the directions to be issued by the learned Magistrate; v) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (i), directions issued above shall thereafter stand revoked and the police shall be at liberty to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law as if those directions were not issued at all; vi) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 15.04.08 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released from custody on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) without any sureties undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 15.04.08. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-