IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1521 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME 57/2008 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- MUHAMMED RAFI..P,S/O.HYDROSE MUSLIAR PULIKKODAN HOUSE, CHERUR, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSEPCTOR OF POLICE VENGARA POLICE STATION-THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 1521 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to learned counsel for petitioner, he stands implicated in a crime registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered as early as on 23.2.2008, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Alavikutty before the police stating that five identifiable persons attacked him by using iron rods, in front of a shop at about 5.30 PM on 23.2.2008. Names of none of the accused were mentioned in the first information statement. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in the crime. There is no basis for arraying him as accused in this case, except an alleged suspicion expressed by the defacto complainant. But, even that suspicion is baseless, since the case diary does not reveal that accused are connected with the crime, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that this petition was filed as early as on 4.3.2008 and several adjournments were sought for by the learned Public Prosecutor and BA.1521/08 2 every time this Court wanted the learned Public Prosecutor to ascertain on which averments the petitioner is included as an accused in the crime. In the first information statement it is stated that the petitioner had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequence, while there was some altercation between the two and this occurred prior to the incident. 4. Though the above details were stated by the defacto complainant in the first information statement, nothing seems to have occurred thereafter. When repeatedly this Court asked learned Public Prosecutor whether the accused 2 to 6 (who surrendered and arrested) were questioned and if so, on which date they were questioned etc., learned learned Public Prosecutor submitted that they were questioned after 18.3.2008. Specific date could not be stated by him. 5. It is relevant to note that this Court had passed the following order on 7.4.2008, i.e., much after the arrest of accused 2 to 6: “The learned P.P prays for time to take further instructions. The learned P.P must explain to the court the basis on which averments are included in the report to array accused 2 to 6 as accused.” Later on 9.4.2008 also it is observed by this Court as follows: BA.1521/08 3 “Learned P.P prays for time to take further instruction. The Investigating Officer has not been able to report before the learned Prosecutor for discussions. In these circumstances he prays for some further time.” 6. Even today, learned Public Prosecutor was not able to say even the date on which accused 2 to 6 allegedly implicated the petitioner in the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor made a general statement without pointing out any specific material from the case diary that the petitioner is the king pin behind the crime and according to accused 2 to 6, he is the person who had arranged them. In the above circumstances, I think, a roving enquiry is made in an attempt to implicate the petitioner as accused. If at all petitioner is an actual culprit, it is high time that sufficient materials are collected. There was sufficient opportunity to get the details, but till now nothing specific could be stated by the respondent against petitioner. 7. Hence, this Court is constrained to pass an order of anticipatory bail and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on BA.1521/08 4 condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.