IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6048 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIMENO.172/2008 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------- SHIBU, S/O.PRAKASHAN, AJITHA BHAVAN, R.K.M.U.P.S. MUTHANA, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.6048 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 109, 308 read with Section 34 of IPC and 27 of Arms Act. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant was waiting for the bus, while first accused came in a motor bike, and aimed a cut at his head, with intention to commit culpable homicide. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is unnecessarily implicated in the crime. There is only a suspicion that petitioner abetted the crime. Petitioner has absolutely nothing to do with the crime or the with first accused. On the basis of mere suspicion, petitioner may not be allowed to be harassed, it is submitted. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he has abetted the crime by the first accused. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, petitioner has sought the help of the first accused to commit the offence because of [B.A.No.6048/08] 2 his previous enmity towards de facto complainant. First accused is a habitual offender and hence, the petitioner is required for investigation. The incident happened as early as on 8.6.2008 and the petitioner was not available for interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. I find that the incident happened as early as on 8.6.2008 and the investigation could not be proceeded with, since the petitioner was not available for interrogation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.