IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5449 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.62/08 OF RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------ ABDULLA, AGED 34, S/O. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT MADIYAM, P.O. MANIKOTH, KANHANGAD VIA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.MURUGAN P.V. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETNED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAPURAM IN RAJAPURAM POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 62/2008. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARIKUNDU. 3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5449 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant had married earlier and accused 9 and 10 are the close relatives of the former wife. They hatched a conspiracy with accused 7 and 8 to commit the offence against the de facto complainant. They hired accused 1 to 6 to commit the various offences and accordingly accused 2 to 4 went in a motorcycle and accused 5 and 6 went in an auto rickshaw to the house of the de facto complainant. Accused 5 and 6 remained outside the house, guarding accused 2 to 4, who went inside the house and poured acid on the de facto complainant and housemaid. They sustained injuries. The de facto complainant was pregnant and child in womb died due to the injury sustained. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the First Information Statement, only three persons were involved in the offence. The de facto complainant told the police at the first instance only regarding the involvement of three persons at the scene. But, much thereafter, the petitioners are implicated as a BA.5449/08 2 result of an afterthought. Petitioner is a coolie and he is arrayed as 6th accused in the crime. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 6th accused also participated in the offence. He had gone to the spot along with other accused and he and 5th accused were guarding the other accused, who had gone into the house and committed the offences at the scene. Therefore, he is required for interrogation by the police and in an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that interrogation of the petitioner will be required for the purpose of an effective investigation. The fact that the de facto complainant did not implicate the petitioner with the crime at the time of giving First Information Statement cannot be made a ground to hold that the petitioner was falsely implicated, since the incident happened inside the house and the petitioner was waiting outside the house. Involvement of the petitioner is revealed during the investigation by questioning various witnesses. BA.5449/08 3 6. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the nature of the investigation required, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.