SEYAD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by A. Seyad and A. Salim, expressing their apprehension that they may be arrested by the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kollam (second respondent) on an accusation of having committed non-bailable offence. It is alleged that one Siddiq had filed a petition before the Hon'ble Home Ministor making some allegations against the petitioners. That petition was forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent received the same on 3.6.2009. A notice was issued to the petitioners to appear before the second respondent on 17.6.2009. According to the petitioners, they appeared. The petitioners alleged that they are being summoned by the second respondent every now and then. It is also alleged in Annex-ure A3 petition dated 27.7.2009 sent by the first petitioner to the Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram that the petitioners were forced to sign some documents in the presence of police. Now, Annexures A4 and A5 noticed dated 11.8.209 have been issued to the petitioners directing them to appear before the Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Kollam on 12.8.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had approached this court in WP(C) No. 23069 of 2009com plaining about police harassment. The writ petition is pending. The bail application is filed in this background.

(2.) The learned public prosecutor submitted that no crime is registered against the petitioners and therefore, the application for anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. To a query whether the police intend to arrest the petitioners on the basis of petition filed by Siddiq, the learned public prosecutor is not in a position to give any assurance that the petitioner would not be arrested.

(3.) When a petition is received by the police, it is for them to decide whether a crime should be registered or not. For that purpose, it is not necessary to summon the respondents in the petition every now and then in order to find out whether there is any material to registered a crime. Such a practice is liable to be deprecated. As of now, the second respondent has not made up his mind as whether a crime should be registered against the petitioners.