IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5378 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.4369/2008 Dated 16/07/2008 CRIME NO. POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.4 ----------------------------- JAISON @ ANOTNY, S/O. RAPPAI, KORUMBERI HOUSE, MAPRANAM, MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5378 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of August,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 399 IPC. According to prosecution, five persons were found near a temple in suspicious circumstance. On questioning them, two persons ran away. Accused 1 to 3 were arrested from the spot and from their possession, chilly powder, gloves and knife were recovered. Persons who ran away are accused 4 and 5. Petitioner is the 4th accused. The incident occurred on 18-5-2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He was falsely implicated, since he is an assistant of the 5th accused. Police has falsely implicated the 5th accused, in a series of cases under sections 402, 324 etc. and his mother had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police alleging harassment from police. The 5th accused is a victim of enmity of a financing group and false cases were registered against him by a Circle BA 5378 /08 -2- Inspector of Police under influence of the financing company. Considering various facts referred to by the 5th accused, anticipatory bail application filed by him as B.A. no.4369/2008 was allowed by this Court as per order dated 16-7-2008. Petitioner, being the assistant of the 5th accused has also been falsely implicated and hence he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. The application is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender and he is implicated in six other cases under sections 302 and 307 IPC and Explosive Substances Act, etc. It is not correct to say that petitioner has anything to do with the 5th accused. He is not similarly placed also 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the order in B.A. no.4369/2008, I find that 5th accused was granted anticipatory bail on the peculiar circumstances exclusively relating to him, which were discussed at length in that order. But those have no bearing on the allegations made against petitioner herein. There is only an oral assertion that petitioner is an assistant of the 5th accused, but learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that petitioner is a habitual offender involved in BA 5378 /08 -3- various of other crimes, which fact could not be denied by the petitioner. 6. In the above circumstances, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an offence of this nature. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.