IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3872 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.273/2009 PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST. (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- A.ABOOBACKER,S/O.MUHAMMED,ARANHIKKAL HOUSE,MATARAKKAL.P.O,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERLA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3872 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 18th August, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 307, 506 (ii), 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was on inimical terms with the injured in this case. Due to this enmity, he decided to do away with the injured and hatched a conspiracy with the other accused in this case. The co-accused are criminals and they were made to reside in the house of petitioner (A3) and petitioner searched the whereabouts of the injured and on getting information, the co- accused were sent to the injured for committing murder. The co- accused assaulted the injured by using weapons and serious injuries were inflicted on him, but he survived. Hence, a crime was registered for the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is in a pitiable physical condition. He is paralysed and Annexure A is the medical certificate, which shows his physical state. Petitioner had filed two applications earlier, but this Court dismissed the applications, since there was no evidence showing BA NO. 3872/10 2 his physical condition. Therefore, Annexure A is produced. It is also submitted that there is no evidence for criminal conspiracy hatched by the petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened more than one year back, on 9.4.2009. The accused nos.1, 2 and 4 were arrested and it is revealed on investigation that it was at the instance of petitioner that serious injuries were inflicted on the injured by the co- accused. Petitioner was having enmity towards the injured and for committing his murder, petitioner sought the help of the co- accused and they were made to live in his house. Even after commission of the offence, he had harboured the accused in his own house. A blood stained cover of a knife was seized from the petitioner's house. It is the petitioner who had informed the co- accused about the whereabouts of the injured for facilitating the commission of offence. It is also submitted that as per the instructions, petitioner is not in a paralysed condition. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the specific nature of involvement of petitioner in the offence, I am satisfied that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner will be required for an BA NO. 3872/10 3 effective investigation. I am also satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere physical condition of a person cannot be taken into account for granting anticipatory bail. In the light of the dispute raised regarding the physical condition of the petitioner, I am not inclined to rely upon Annexure A certificate, for disposal of this petition. Even otherwise, the incident happened as early as on 9.4.2009 and this petition is highly belated. I am satisfied that any further delay caused, in arresting the petitioner and interrogating him will have adverse impact on the investigation. For these reasons, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. On two earlier occasions, the court has considered the case of the petitioner and found that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. I do not find nay reason to come to a different finding. Petitioner shall surrender to law at the earliest. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs