IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 408 of 2009() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.38/2009 OF MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLOOR) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAJI V.V., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, VADAKKOTTU HOUSE, KARUPPADANNA DESOM, KARUPPADANNA P.O., KUNNINMUKAL, KODUNGALLOOR. 2. V.B.RATHISH, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.BAHULEYAN, VADAKKOTTU HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST, MATHILAKAM P.O., KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADVS. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN, MR.S.MOHANDAS. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, KODUNGLLOOR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 408 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 394 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused 1 and 2 along with two others snatched away gold chain after assaulting de facto complainant and thereby committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant's sister used to telephone to 1st accused and this was not liking of de facto complainant. Three was a scuffle between de facto complainant and petitioner on account of this and during this, he lost his chain. The case that chain was snatched away is a further development and First Information Statement does not show that chain was snatched away. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the First Information Statement there is a clear statement to the effect that chain was snatched away from the neck of de facto complainant and it is not correct to say that such allegation is absent in the First Information Statement. This is a case of robbery and it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. BA 408/09 -2- 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature where petitioners will be required for recovery and interrogation. Crime was registered as early as on 11-1-2009. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.