IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5078 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------- M.T.MADHU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 25 YEARS MATTUPARATHOTTATHIL, MANKULAM P.O., VIRIPARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 5078 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 457 and 511 of 380 read with section 34 IPC . According to the prosecution, petitioner has allegedly attempted to commit batteries from a tower shelter of Airtel Ltd. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. According to him, the management of Airtel was on inimical terms with the petitioner because of his activities in the trade union. He was expelled from the service while he was working as a technician in Airtel Ltd. So, this case is falsely fabricated against him without any basis. It is pointed out that as per allegations in the First Information Statement, two persons ran away, but it has not been mentioned that the defacto- complainant identified the petitioner from the spot. The petitioner can be identified by the defacto-complainant by sight, since they are acquainted with each other but having not done so, it has to be inferred that the petitioner was not involved, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a vehicle, which was used regularly by the petitioner was found in front of the tower at BA 5078/08 -2- 11.30 p.m. on the day of the incident, when the crime was detected. It is also pointed out that a purse of the petitioner was seized by the police from the premises of the scene. It contained documents including driving licence of the petitioner. But, the purse was not so far claimed by any person, though the incident happened as early as on 15-7-2008. It is seen from the First Information Statement that after the incident petitioner had made a phone call to the defacto- complainant to ascertain whether any complaint was lodged against the petitioner. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. This application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.