IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 555 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.165/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.38/09 OF CHANGANACHERRY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------- 1. ANU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.APPACHAN, PUTHUKKATTIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. BETTY, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, KONAKATHOTTIL PUTHENPARAMBU HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. 3. KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.P.K.MADHAVAN, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 555 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323 and 392 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him and robbed Rs.3,500/- from him on 15.1.2009 at about 6.45 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are working as labourers under the de facto complainant and some amount was due from de facto complainant towards wages and de facto complainant refused to pay the money, in spite of demands. When petitoiners started making demands, de facto complainant threatened them saying that they will be implicated in some case and hence, this false case is filed. According to learned counsel for petitioners, the FIR is registered only on the next day and that BA.555/09 2 itself will prove the improbability in the case set up by de facto complainant. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per the allegations made in the First Information Statement, his workers were sitting in a tempo van, the van was stopped and robbery was committed. If the workers were there, it was not possible for the accused to commit the offences, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners wanted job under de facto complainant, who is a construction worker and who belongs to Tamil Nadu. Since de facto complainant was not willing to give any employment, they were infuriated and they committed the offences. There is nothing on record to support the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioners. On considering the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is ample evidence to show that petitioners have committed the offences as alleged. It is true that the other workers were in the tempo van, but by the time they got out of the van and BA.555/09 3 reached de facto complainant, the incident was over. The accused had already left after commission of the offence as revealed from the statement given by the workers as well as the de facto complainant in the First Information Statement. Accused had come in a motorbike. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations that accused were falsely implicated because of any particular reason. De facto complainant had gone to doctor and he had pain on the right ear. He had also sustained abrasion on the left side of the head and other complaints also. 7. On hearing both sides, considering the various facts stated, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though counter allegation is made, nothing on record would support such allegations. The allegations made are serious and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. BA.555/09 4 (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.