IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 360 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1558/08 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ABDUL SAMAD @ SAMAD, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, EDAYAPPURAM HOUSE, THURANGAM BHAGOM, KOTTAPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAPADY KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIS PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 360 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 394 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with two others, were travelling in a vehicle and on seeing the de facto complainant, they stopped the vehicle and offered him a lift. He got into the vehicle and on the way, Rs.36,000/- and a mobile phone were robbed from him. This was on 18.11.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay of 15 days in lodging the complaint. FIR was registered only on 3.12.2008. De facto complainant was called by name by the accused and this will indicate that petitioners were known to de facto complainant, but no names are mentioned in the FIR. Petitioners are innocent of the allegations made and there is no explanation for the delay caused, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that petitioner is prepared to surrender before the police, if so directed, and he BA.360/09 2 shall also co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner is only aged only 21 years and he is not involved in any other crime in his life, it is submitted. Hence, this court may direct that petitioner may not be tortured in the police station. This is the only prayer, it is submitted, in case anticipatory bail is rejected. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused was arrested and he was granted bail by this Court only after about 50 days of detention. He had no complaint that he was tortured by the police. It is submitted that there is nothing in the First Information Statement to show that petitioners were known to de facto complainant and hence absence of name in FIR will not be of any consequence. The fact that de facto complainant was called by his name does not mean that accused were known to de facto complainant. In the First Information Statement itself, it is stated that de facto complainant accepted the offer for lift, thinking that the persons might be known to him, since they referred to him by his name. On the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA.360/09 3 5. On hearing both sides on the facts, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. In the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since, petitioner is required for recovery. But, petitioner expresses anxiety about a possible torture at the police station. Considering all the above facts, though anticipatory bail cannot be granted, I pass the following order: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within four days from today and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. (2) The police shall not give any room for any complaint of custodial torture against petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.