IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 647 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.166/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.321/08 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.4 -------------------------------- SABUKUTTAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR, KALABHAVAN, KANGAZHA, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 647 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 394 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 21.12.2008, accused 1 to 6 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit robbery of huge amount of money from de facto complainant and accordingly, an advertisement was given stating that a Qualis van was available for sale and a mobile phone number was also given. De facto complainant contacted in the mobile phone number and he was asked to come to a particular place at Karukachal. De facto complainant went there with another person, while accused 1 to 4 came to the place. Accused 1 and 2 put chilly powder and first accused stabbed de facto complainant by using a knife which belonged to fourth accused. De facto complainant was also assaulted by accused 1 and 2. A bag containing Rs.5,30,000/- was snatched away from de facto complainant by accused 1 and 2. BA.647/09 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no specific overt act is alleged against petitioner. Petitioner was not even present at the scene. He is falsely implicated in this offence and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the First Information Statement, involvement of two persons alone was mentioned, since the presence of petitioner could not have been noticed by de facto complainant, as chilly powder was sprinkled on his face. However, on the very same day, it is revealed from the statement of witnesses, who had witnessed the scene that petitioner was also present along with other three accused. Petitioner's role in the crime is revealed on investigation subsequent to the arrest of accused 1, 3 and 6 also. Petitioner is required for interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that on the facts and circumstances of this case, for the mere reason that First Information Statement did not contain anything regarding the BA.647/09 3 involvement of petitioner, it may not be proper at this stage to grant anticipatory bail. There is allegation of conspiracy and petitioner is also implicated as a conspirator. Petitioner will be required for interrogation. The knife allegedly used by first accused is not so far recovered, as pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co- operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. I K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.