IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2482 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.36/09 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT) .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ VINODAN T.K., S/O.CHANDU, AGED 33, THAYYULLATHIL THAZHE KUNIYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHOKIL, THALASSERY. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, SRI.K.VISWAN, SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & FORMAL PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.H.O. CHOKLI POLICE STATION, THALASSERY. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2482 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A3) along with others, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and inflicted injuries on him, by beating with iron rod etc. The incident happened on 23.02.2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant lodged a complaint only after two days of the incident on 25.02.2009. In the F.I. Statement, the allegation was that four persons, who are identifiable by sight, attacked him etc. Petitioner is a close friend of the de facto complainant and they are residing in the same locality and known to each other. If the petitioner was involved in the offences, de facto complainant would have certainly mentioned his name. 4. But after lapse of more than one year, petitioner is now sought to be arrested in connection with the crime, on the allegation that he is also involved in the offence. Learned counsel B.A. No. 2482 of 2010 2 for petitioner also submitted that de facto complainant is an Ayurvedic Physician and recently there was an allegation against him in the locality that he was using women for massage in his clinic and there was some protest against him. Petitioner had taken the side of those, who were protesting against the de facto complainant. Therefore, recently de facto complainant developed some enmity towards petitioner and that is only reason why petitioner is being implicated after long lapse of time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was questioned on several occasions. Petitioner was also questioned by the police, but over a period of one year, there was no allegation that petitioner was involved in the offence. He fairly conceded that as per the F.I. Statement, the assailants were persons who are identifiable by sight, but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. There is nothing on record to indicate that petitioner was involved in the offence. But a witness to the incident stated recently that petitioner was found going in an autorickshaw near the place of occurrence and hence he is implicated. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the belated circumstances under which the petitioner is brought into the B.A. No. 2482 of 2010 3 array of accused and various other facts and circumstances discussed above, I find that it is just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2. On such surrender, if petitioner is arrested and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln