IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7748 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.721/2008 OF VADANAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- BINOJ KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, ARUKETTY VEEDU, ENGHANDIYUR, CHAVAKKADU THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7748 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 324, 302, 120(B) and 149 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, on 28.09.2008, accused nos.1, 2, 8 to 11 conspired to commit murder of the deceased and accused nos.1 to 6 committed the offences. Accused nos.1 to 5, in a car and sixth accused, in a motor bike went to the deceased, while he was talking with the defacto complainant on 01.10.2008 at about 6 p.m. Both of them ran away, the deceased was chased and he was brutally attacked with swords, axe etc. and he sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries from the hospital. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is implicated on the basis of a statement given by the co-accused. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He is implicated only because he is a worker of the BJP and the deceased is a CPM worker. B.A.No.7748 of 2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is ample evidence in the case diary to connect petitioner with the crime. Petitioner is the ninth accused. He had taken part in the conspiracy and this was witnessed by CW 37. The incident occurred as early as on 01.10.2008 and petitioner is not available for arrest and interrogation. Petitioner is required for interrogation. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the fact that petitioner is required for interrogation to elicit facts within his exclusive knowledge, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 01.10.2008 and hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. B.A.No.7748 of 2008 3 ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac