IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4784 of 2008() ----------------------------- CIME NO.320/07 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.SHYAMJITH, 23 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, MALAMAL THODI MEETHAL, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, NALLALAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4784 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 392 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, while de facto complainant was proceeding in a two-wheeler, accused 1, 2, 6 and 7 followed him in two motorbikes and hit against the vehicle, in which he was travelling. When he fell down, he was assaulted and Rs.1,70,000/- and 2 Kg of gold ornaments were taken away from his possession. On investigation, it is revealed that three more persons are involved in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He was not identified by the de facto complainant. But, he is falsely implicated now. As per the FIS, he mentioned that three persons had committed the offences at the scene, out of which the description of two persons alone are stated and the descriptions of third person are not mentioned. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 1, 2, 6 and 7 were at the scene. The BA.4784/08 2 investigation revealed the role of 7th accused. Petitioner is the 7th accused. Accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 were arrested and some of the stolen articles were recovered from their possession. The materials collected in investigation clearly reveal the involvement of petitioner in the crime and hence it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in an offence of this nature, considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The incident happened as early as on 2.11.2007 and about one year has elapsed now and all the accused could not be arrested. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.