IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3774 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.308/2010 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR.) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (S): -------------------- 1. CHANDRASHEKARAN @ CHANDRAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING IN NEDUMKULANGARAMALA HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, ATHANI, ERNAKULAM. 2. MOHANKUMAR @ MOHANAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING IN NEDUMKULANGARAMALA HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI, KAKKANAD, ATHANI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, (SHO, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No. 3774 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 394 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, the petitioners (accused 1 and 2) along with another committed robbery by snatching away a gold chain, after voluntarily causing hurt to him by beating on the face and chest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the incident happened on 24.4.2010, the First Information Report was registered only on 4.5.2010. There is a long delay in reporting the matter. This is a falsely foisted case. There is enmity between the petitioners and the de facto complainant, in connection with their business in ice cream. No such incident happened, as alleged, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that third accused was granted bail by the trial court on the same day on which he was produced in court. BA. No. 3774 of 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the delay is explained in the First Information Report itself. It is also submitted that the first accused has snatched away the gold chain and it is to be recovered. Granting of bail to third accused under Section 437 of Criminal Procedure Code by itself may not be a ground for granting anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. On considering the serious allegations made in the complaint, as revealed from the case diary, and the need for interrogation and recovery, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There is only a bare assertion of innocence from the side of petitioner, without any supporting materials or circumstances. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. nj.