IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH MAY 2008 / 19TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2908 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 91 OF 2008 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED --------------------------------------- UNNI @ ANILKUMAR. S/O.SIMON, KURUVIKKADU NADUTHATTI PUTHEN VEEDU, ARAYOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (SRI. AMJAD ALI) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 2908 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of May, 2008 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 452, 323, 324, 326,294(b) read with Section 34 of IPC. He along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that specific allegation of trespass and assault was made against the first accused. Even as per the F.I.R., the 3rd accused has not entered the compound of de facto complainant or committed any assault on him. Learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the anticipatory bail application, submitted that petitioner is involved in various other cases and proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are also pending against him. The offence is committed in furtherance of common intention and it is a motivated crime. 4. The de facto complainant has sustained fracture. Though there is delay in filing the F.I.R. the same is explained, it is [BA.2908/08] 2 submitted. On hearing both sides, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.