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. 3841 of 2008(K) ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 393/2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.K.BIJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.BALAMANI, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANNUR, P.O.AJANNUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. VINU @ VINOD, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.BALAMANI, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANNUR, P.O.AJANNUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, KANIYAMKUNNU, AJANNUR, P.O.AJANNUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CR.NO.293 OF 2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD. 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. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3841 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 448, 323, 308 read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 16-5-2008 at 8 p.m. while defacto-complainant was on security duty in a shopping complex, petitioners trespassed into the complex and assaulted him with stick on his head due to personal rivalry and thereby committed the alleged offences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that First Information Statement was lodged against three other persons, but the petitioners are now falsely implicated by a subsequent statement. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the names of the petitioners were given only at the instance of the original accused. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the First Information Statement was given by the defacto-complainant when he was in a partially conscious state. Later, when he was questioned, he understood that the names were wrongly stated, but the petitioners are the persons who are actually involved in the offences. Witnesses were also questioned during BA 3841/08 -2- the investigation and their statements also reveal that the petitioners themselves are actually involved in the offence. It is not made clear by the petitioners why the defacto-complainant wanted to exonerate the actual culprits and falsely implicate innocent persons against whom the defacto- complainant has no enmity. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioners are not able to point out any enmity for the defacto-complainant to falsely implicate them in the offence. 5. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.