High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
K.P.SADASIVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR v. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Bail Appl No. 4237 of 2007  RD-KL 12974 (13 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMBail Appl No. 4237 of 2007()
1. K.P.SADASIVAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR,
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.B.A.No.4237 of 2007
Dated this the 13th day of July 2007
O R D E RApplication for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the President of a Gramma Panchayat. The Village Officer of the local village allegedly lodged a complaint before the police that the petitioner had assaulted him and had caused obstructions for the due discharge of his official duty.
2. The petitioner had allegedly gone to the Panchayat office on receiving certain complaints that the Village Officer was not fairly and correctly issuing income certificates to various applicants in the locality. In the course of discussions, the President is alleged to have got irritated and assaulted the victim/Village Officer. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally false. The de facto complainant apprehends that the petitioner may initiate action against him for not having issued income certificates honestly and properly and to forestall any such complaint, such a false complaint has B.A.No.4237/07 2 been filed by the de facto complainant. The petitioner is a respectable person of the locality. He is a local Gramma Panchayat President. In these circumstances, directions under Section 438 Cr.P.C may be issued in favour of the petitioner, it is submitted.
4. The social and political standing of the petitioner notwithstanding, if the allegations are false, any court is bound to view such allegations with seriousness. The short and crucial question is whether at the moment, it can be assumed that the allegations are made against the petitioner without bona fides or with oblique and mala fide motives.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations being serious and there being no reason, at the moment to suspect the allegations raised, the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C may not be invoked in favour of the petitioner.
6. I shall, at this early stage of investigation, carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that at the moment and with the available inputs, I find no B.A.No.4237/07 3 reason to assume that the allegations are made falsely and with vexatious intent. I need only say that I find no reason to invoke the extraordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction or the investigating officer and seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course. I find no reason to assume that the learned Magistrate would not consider the petitioner's application for regular bail on merits and expeditiously.
7. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and applies for 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, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge B.A.No.4237/07 4 B.A.No.4237/07 5
ORDER21ST DAY OF MAY2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.