CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are accused 2 and 4 to 12 in crime No. 110 of 1977 of the Chittur police station. A case has been registered against them for offences punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 426, 506 (ii) and 307 read with S.149 IPC. The first informant is one Ramakrishnan who belongs to the family of the petitioner. At about 10 P. M. on 3-8-1977 the petitioners along with others are said to have formed an unlawful assembly in front of the gate of the residential house of the first informant with a view to commit the offences mentioned above. The first informant was criminally intimidated and a challenge was extended to him to get out of the house. The first informant remained inside the house. On being exhorted by some of the members of the unlawful assembly, the first accused in the case who had a pistol with him is stated to have fired six or seven rounds aiming at the place where the first informant was sitting. The other members of the unlawful assembly are stated to have pelted stones at the house. Since the first informant refused to get out of the house, the unlawful assembly dispersed and the petitioners went away.

(2.) This petition is for anticipatory bail on the following grounds: The first informant is a political leader of the locality and is wielding considerable influence over the officials. The case has been registered on account of political rivalry between the petitioners and the first informant. The accusation against the petitioners is false. The petitioners, however, genuinely apprehend that they would be arrested by the police on the basis of the accusation and that they would be unnecessarily detained in custody with the object of causing disgrace and physical harm to them.

(3.) An application for the identical relief was moved before the Sessions Judge, Palghat. The Sessions Judge disallowed the prayer stating that since a crime has been registered it is upto the petitioners to move for bail in the lowest court of competent jurisdiction by presenting themselves before that court. A similar stand has been taken by the State in this court. It is also contended by the State that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the granting of anticipatory bail.