IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4829 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1386/2008 IN CRIME NO.177/08 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS:-ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O SADANANDAN, CHENNIVILAYIL ENATHU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SAJEEV KUMAR, S/O SADANANDAN,EDAVILAYIL VEEDU, BHARANIKAVU SOUTH, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. SATHYA KUMAR, S/O SADANANDAN, VALIYAVILAYIL BLOCK NO.26, HARIJAN COLONY, UMBERNADU MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE,MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRAKASH RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4829 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 450 and 394 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioners 1 to 3 snatched away the gold chain from the defacto complainant on 5.3.2008 and assaulted her, in the course of which, she sustained injury to the finger. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant only as a shield to a complaint which she expected the petitioner to file against her. Prior to the alleged incident in this case, first petitioner was travelling in a bike and the defacto complainant was sitting on the road inside the colony and the petitioner had to apply sudden break consequent to which he fell down from the bike and sustained injury. There was altercation between the two. The defacto complainant apprehended that the petitioner would lodge a complaint against her and therefore, to shield the action, this complaint is filed, it is submitted. BA No.4829/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioners are involved in other cases including offences under Section 302 IPC. Petitioners are required for the purpose of recovery of the article and also for custodial interrogation. Three persons are implicated by the defacto complainant and the complaint is not against the first petitioner alone. Though there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it is explained by the defacto complainant that there was a mediation and she expected the gold chain to be returned by the petitioners. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioners custodial interrogation is required for the purpose of effecting recovery of the gold chain and hence, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl