IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 373 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.332/2008 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SHIJITH, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, MALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENCODE, PALAYAMKUNNU P.O., CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK. BY ADV. MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.373 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 342 and 397 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, first accused demanded Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant. When he refused, accused nos.1 to 6, in furtherance of common intention to commit various offences, took the defacto complainant in a car by force, and took him into a pond and drowned him in water. His gold locket and a wrist watch were taken away. He was then taken to a workshop. From there also, he was manhandled by the blunted portion of the sword. On the next day, he was taken to a bank by force to sign documents in the bank for withdrawing Rs.50,000/- and the said amount was taken by the accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the sixth accused. The defacto complainant owed some money to the first accused and he was reluctant to pay back the money. Therefore, the mediators intervened and at B.A.No.373 of 2009 2 their insistence, he had to pay back some amount. Therefore, a false complaint is filed against petitioner. There is a long delay in lodging the complaint, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that the allegations made are serious in nature and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the delay is properly explained. The incident occurred on 20.11.2008 and 21.11.2008, and the crime was registered on 23rd of the same month. The complaint was not lodged within 24 hours, only because he was threatened by petitioner and this fact is stated in the F.I.Statement itself. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. The crime was registered as early as on 23.11.2008 and petitioner is not surrendered to law. Hence, the following order is passed :- B.A.No.373 of 2009 3 i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac