IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3895 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 113/08 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ ACCUSED ----------------------------------- JIJESH @ STARVIN RAJ, S/O.ANTONY, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, MARUTHAMALA P.O, VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. -------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 3895 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323 and 379 IPC. According to prosecution, a motor accident occurred involving the vehicle in which de facto complainant was travelling. A person was injured. The de facto complainant and others were also injured in the incident. The injured and the de facto complainant were getting into bus to proceed to the hospital while the petitioner and others got into the bus and committed various offences. They also snatched away the gold chain worth 8 sovereign from the neck of the de facto complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a false case. It is highly improbable that the de facto complainant, who is only a coolie, would have a gold chain worth 8 sovereign. Some people had beaten up the de facto complainant and others, since a pedestrian was knocked down [B.A.No.3895/08] 2 by the vehicle in which de facto complainant was travelling, but the petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that recovery of the alleged ornament is to be effected and petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. I am satisfied of the submissions made by him and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an offence of this nature. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.