IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5608 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.278/2011 OF THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------------------- JOSE C.JOHNY, S/O. JOHNY, CHIRAYATHU HOUSE, MARATHAKARA, OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL SMT.K.S.HASEENA RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU POLICE STATION, THROUGH - THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5608 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.278 of 2011 of Thalayolaparambu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 364A and 450 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The de facto complainant and the first accused had business dealings. An excavator was given on rent to the de facto complainant by the first accused. According to the de facto complainant, the rent was paid. According to the petitioner/first accused, interest was not paid. The allegation is that on 17.5.2011, at 3 P.M., the accused persons entered into the office of the de facto BA 5608/2011 2 complainant and demanded money. While the de facto complainant was trying to move in a car, accused Nos.1 and 2 pushed him into the car and they drove away. The de facto complainant was taken near a place to Oberon Mall, Ernakulam, where the first accused was waiting. The de facto complainant was made to telephone to one of his employees for the purpose of bringing money. The employee of the de facto complainant brought ` 58,500/- and that amount was paid to the first accused. For the balance amount demanded by the first accused, it is alleged that the de facto complainant was forced to sign certain blank papers. Later, the de facto complainant was left at Kadavanthra. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant was thoroughly beaten up by the accused. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The offences alleged BA 5608/2011 3 against the petitioner are serious in nature. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl