STATE OF KERALA Vs. V. ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents herein are accused Nos. 22 and 23 in Crl. 116 of 2003 of Nemom Police Station. Serious allegations were raised against the accused in the case of violation of the provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. Both the respondents were granted anticipatory bail as per common order dated 13-05-2005 by another Bench of this court. The relevant directions in the operative portion are extracted below :-

(2.) Accordingly the respondents/accused appeared before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction on 19-5-2005 and were enlarged on bail on execution of bonds/complying with conditions on that date. Thereafter they were expected under the terms of the order extracted above to report before the Investigating Officer between 10 am and 11 am on all days for a period of one month. The common order clearly shows that the respondent/complaint was "State of Kerala, represented by Hareesh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police, City Police Control Room, Thiruvananthapuram". After their release, the petitioners were expected to report before the Investigating Officer on all days for a period of one month. Admittedly the petitioners did not report before Sri. Hareesh Kumar, C.I. of Police, during the period 20-5-2005 to 26-5-2005. They did however start reporting before him admittedly from 27-5-2005. These applications for cancellation of anticipatory bail under S.439(2) Cr.P.C. are filed by the State on 26-5-2005 on the allegation that the conditions imposed have not been complied with during the period, 20-5-2005 to 26-5-2005.

(3.) The respondents have entered appearance through counsel. They contend that the prayer for cancellation of bail is misconceived. It is purely an ego clash between the C.I. referred above and the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sankumugham who has been legally put in charge of supervision of the investigation by a valid order of the DGP. They contend that when they were enlarged on bail, they were issued a memo (produced by the respondents as Annexure R1) addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Police. In these circumstances, they had appeared before the said Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sankumugham from 20-05-2005 to 26-05-2005 in obedience to the directions of this court. They had apprised the Assistant Commissioner of the directions of the Court and had faithfully reported before him on all days from 20-05-2005 to 26-05-2005. He had acknowledged such appearance and had also wanted/permitted them to sign the register maintained at his office in token of their having appeared before him from 20-05-2005 to 26-05-2005.