IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4062 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.120/2008 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED: --------------------------- JAYAPRAKASH @ KUTTAN, S/O. SAYAMALAN, AGED 27, T.C. 16/1087, KARUVILA PANAYIL VEEDU JAGATHY, THYCAUD.P.O, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4062 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, while the defacto-complainant and another were proceeding on a motor bike, accused 1 and 2 blocked the bike, pulled down the defacto-complainant from the bike and assaulted by hitting with a stone on his face and due to the assault his nasal bone was fractured. A crime was registered against a few persons including “sixteen kuttan” under sections 324, 426, 341, 308 read with section 34 IPC. The petitioner is the said “sixteen kuttan”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He was away at Madurai on the alleged date and time of occurrence. Train tickets are also produced as Annexures-I and II and on the basis of those, it is submitted that the petitioner had left Thiruvananthapuram on 5-4-2008 at 8 p.m. and he started from Madurai on 6-4-2008 at 11 p.m. 4.Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the train tickets will not reveal that the petitioner had used the same. It is pointed out by him that the learned Sessions Judge considered the documents and found that those BA 4062/08 -2- documents are insufficient to establish the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was away, since there is nothing in the document to prove the same. The application is opposed. 5. On going through the case diary, it can be seen that the allegation made to the doctor that the injured was attacked by four persons. In the First Information Statement, given only after nine days after the incident, a reference was made to “sixteen kuttan” as assailant. On investigation, it is revealed that the said “suxteen kuttan” is the petitioner. As per the First Information Statement the petitioner only beat the co-passenger with hand and no fracture was inflicted by the assault. 6. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of the offence committed, particularly the specific motive alleged, I find that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The plea of alibi is to be proved by satisfactory evidence and the burden is on the accused. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.