IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 468 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.1/2009 OF VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- 1. SIVARAJAN @ SIVADASAN, AGED 23, S/O MANI, KANNATHUKAD,MANAPPADAM,PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KANNAN, AGED 29 YRS,S/O.PAZHANIMALA, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM,PUDUKODE,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. KUTTAN @ AJEESH, AGED 21 YRS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM, PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. ARUNAN AGED 24 YRS,S/O.CHANDRAN, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM,PUDUKODE,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. PRAMOD, AGED 21 YRS,S/O.DAMODHARAN, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM, PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. VIJESH @ BIJU, AGED 24 YRS, S/O.THEETHAN KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM, PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. SURESH @ PRAVEEN DAS, AGED 25 YRS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM, PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. PREMADAS, AGED 23 YRS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, KANNATHUKAD, MANAPPADAM, PUDUKODE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 468 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 395, 354 and 357 of IPC. According to prosecution, in the night of 31.12.2008, de facto complainant and her family were returning after the prayer in the Church, when accused numbers 1 to 8 and 3 other identifiable persons, committed various offences. They took away 20 grams of gold chain, a mobile phone and a wrist watch etc. Learned counsel for Petitioner submitted that petitioners are arrayed as accused nos. 1 to 8 out of which, accused no.6 is already arrested. Petitioners are innocent o the allegations made. As per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, a group of people have committed the overt act. According to First Information Statement, some names are being stated from the crowd during the course of incident and she believes that those persons are involved. There is no case that accused have [B.A.No.468/09] 2 snatched away the gold chain, but she only stated she lost the same. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners are implicated as accused nos. 1 to 6. They are involved in the offence along with other 3 identifiable persons. The articles are not so far recovered. They are necessary for recovery of article. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of allegations made, this is not fit case to grant anticipatory bail. At this stage, it cannot be said that de facto complainant was not referring to the persons names in the F.I. Statement. This is a matter to be investigated into and petitioners are required for interrogation and also for the recovery of alleged stolen article. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with the interrogation. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out to invoke the provision under section 438 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following order is passed. 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether [B.A.No.468/09] 3 they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them at any time and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by these petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.