IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 78 of 2009() --------------------------- CRMP.3814/2008 of II ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM CRIME NO.1359/08 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS -------------------- 1. SAJU S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SHERAFUDEEN, VAYALIL THOPPU, NATIONAL NAGAR, PALAYATHODU, KOLLAM. 2. AMEER SHAN B, SHAMLA MANZIL, DO.........DO......... BY ADV. SRI.MATHAI VARKEY MUTHIRENTHY SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 78 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners caused hurt to de facto complainant while attempting to snatch away the bag and when it was resisted, second accused pulled him and accused 1 to 4 beat him and fisted and thereby committed the offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was only a quarrel between accused 1 and 2 with de facto complainant in a drunken stage. Police came to the scene and all the three were taken into custody. Thereafter, a case was registered against accused 1 and 2. Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 and they are relatives of accused 1 and 2. They did not take part in the incident. They are falsely implicated in the offence and no offence under Section 394 IPC is attracted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA.78/09 2 submitted that the acts committed by petitioners attract offence under Section 394 IPC. Petitioners have also allegedly assaulted de facto complainant while one of them tried to snatch away the bag. De facto complainant is the Manager of the Bamboo Corporation and the robbery was attempted, since they might have expected that some money would be in the possession of de facto complainant. Involvement of four persons are mentioned in the First Information Statement itself and it is not correct to say that petitioners were implicated subsequently. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the rival contentions, it cannot be said at this stage that petitioners have not taken part in the incident. Going by language of Section 394 IPC also, it is not possible to say at this stage, prima facie, that the attempt of robbery was not committed. In a case of this nature, considering the serious allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Hence, the following order is passed: BA.78/09 3 (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.