IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7635 of 2008() ----------------------------- ( CRIME NO.304/2008 OF HILL PALACE POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/A7 -------------------- DINESH, AGED 33, S/O.P.PARAMU, PARANKITHITTAYIL HOUSE VALAPPIKKADAVU, POONITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE(CRIME 304/08), HILL PALACE POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7635 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 395 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 26.3.2008 at about 3 P.M. petitioner along with others assaulted de facto complainant and put him under fear of death and procured signed blank stamp papers and white papers and also cheque leaf. They also committed dacoity by forcibly robbing Rs.24,000/- from him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. In the F.I.R., petitioner was not implicated, but subsequently, petitioner is also implicated as an accused and he apprehends arrest. He also submitted that A1 to A6 are already release on bail by trial court. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, in the F.I. Statement, only first accused's name was mentioned. He along with 15 other identifiable persons allegedly took part in the offence and subsequently 7 persons were identified and petitioner is arrayed as accused no.7. Petitioner is required for interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. [B.A.No.7635/08] 2 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out which persuades me to invoke the provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The fact that co-accused are granted bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 26.3.2008 and 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 forthwith 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 the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.