BAIL APPL No. 1963 of 2008 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 3 to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTATHUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008
O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the third accused in a crime registered alleging the offence punishable under Section 353 r/w. 149 I.P.C. as also for the offence punishable under the M.M.D.R. Act. The crux of the allegations is that a police party found an autorikshaw loaded with river sand. They intercepted the vehicle, wanted to effect arrest of the miscreants and seizure of the autorikshaw. A group of persons, 20 in number, allegedly deterred the police party from discharge of their official duty. Four named persons and 16 others are shown as accused in the F.I.R. Petitioner is one of the four named. The first accused was arrested at the spot. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle has been seized and the first accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The allegations are false and B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 2 incorrect. The petitioner may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and then seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor.
Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am unable to perceive any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioner must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course.
This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice B.A.No. 1963 of 2008 3 to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 01 Apr 2008. The bench was R BASANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.