IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3507 of 2010() ----------------------------- Crime No.380/2010 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur District APPLICANT/1ST ACCUSED -------------------------------- JAYAN, S/O.MOHANAN, TADUTHANKULANGARA HOUSE, KURUMALY P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3507 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 22.05.2010 at about 1.45 P.M., while the de facto complainant was standing on the road and talking to some others, he was forcibly taken into a car and thereafter accused nos.1 to 3 hit him with a hitting block and thereafter Rs. 4000/- was taken from his bag. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no such incident as alleged by the prosecution has occurred. De facto complainant's father owes Rs. 4000/- to the petitioner and he had gone to his house, for getting money back. He refused to pay back the money and there was a quarrel between them. But now an allegation is made that de facto complainant was abducted in a car, which is absolutely false. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that hitting block was used by the first accused to assault the de facto complainant and the recovery is not so far B.A. No. 3507 of 2010 2 effected. Petitioner is required for interrogation for effecting the recovery. The money snatched away from the de facto complainant is also to be recovered. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner (A1) is required for interrogation and recovery of the articles involved in the offence. Considering serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, I am not satisfied of the counter allegations made. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co- operate with the investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln