IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5743 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.264/2007 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------- RATHEESH, S/O.KUNJU KUNJU, KADIYAMKUNNEL, ACHANKANAM, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO. 264/2007 OF VANDANMEDU POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5743 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 395 IPC. According to the prosecution, on 4-11-2007 de facto complainant and others went to the house of 1st accused for purchasing cardamom plantation belonging to 1st accused. There was a talk in connection with the sale and in the meantime, 1st accused assaulted de facto complainant and others who accompanied him. The 2nd accused took by force Rs.4 lakhs from Prasanth and Rs.6 lakhs from Kunhu Mohammed who accompanied de facto complainant. There were 12 persons altogether from the side of the accused. All of them assaulted de facto complainant and others. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident occurred on 4-11-2007 and complaint was given only on 7-11-2007. The complaint reached the court only on 9-11-2007. Though an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was allegedly robbed from de facto complainant's companions, de facto complainant lodged the complaint only at a belated stage. The explanation given by de facto complainant is that he was embarrassed to disclose the facts to the police. It is also submitted that later, de facto BA 5743/08 -2- complainant came forward with a totally different story at the time of questioning by police. Nobody was injured in this case. 4.Learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded that in subsequent statement de facto complainant has given a different version that he had gone to the house for purchasing “rise pulling materials” and he has also given various details about the same. Petitioner may be directed to co-operate with the investigation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the various other facts submitted, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating BA 5743/08 -3- Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.