IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5714 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.246 OF 2008 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- K.HAMEED, S/O.MAMMOO HAJI, AGED 50 YEARS, FATHIMA MANZIL, NEAR RELIANCE PETROL PUMP, KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.246 OF 2008 OF KOOTHUPARAMBA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5714 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 365 read with section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with three other accused in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the victim who is the father of de facto complainant and abducted him demanding Rs. 10 lakhs from him. On knowing that a crime was registered and that police is investigating into the crime, on the next day, he was released. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and alleged victim are partners in a business. The victim used to borrow money from him and there was some money transaction between them. A cheque was issued by victim to petitioner and it bounced and a complaint was also filed against de facto complainant. Because of this enmity, a false complaint is lodged and petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. [B.A.No.5714/08] 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are persons who witnessed the abduction and information was conveyed to de facto complainant and immediately a complaint was lodged and a crime was registered and the victim was released on the next day. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of allegations made, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.