IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 77 of 2009(B) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 509/2008 OF CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONER: ------------------- KABEER, S/O. SIDHIQUE, AGED 20 YEARS, CHALIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHURA P.O., CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD POLICE STATION, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 77 OF 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 28th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 342, 394 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3) along with other accused made a phone call to de facto complainant on the pretext that there was a mobile phone for sale and accordingly, when he went to them, they forcibly took him in an autorickshaw and robbed an amount of Rs.3,200/-, a mobile phone and wrist watch. They also demanded Rs.1 lakh and made de facto complainant to call his brother to bring Rs.1 lakh and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is an absolutely false case. This was filed only as a retaliation to another complaint filed against de facto complainant. De facto complainant married the 2nd accused's sister and they were not in good terms. De facto complainant's wife filed a complaint under section 498, 312 and 313 read with section 34 IPC against BA 77/2009 -2- de facto complainant and he was remanded in the said case in May, 2008. Because of this, de facto complainant was having enmity towards his wife and his family members. So, after he was released from jail, in the next month, he lodged the present complaint against his wife's brother (A2) and his friends, it is submitted. 4. The 2nd accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and as per order dated 14-8-2008 in Crl.M.C.no.1328/2008 the court was pleased to accept the contentions and granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd accused. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that “it is not easy to believe that de facto complainant who is the 1st accused in Crime no.447/2008 had willingly gone to the present petitioner on getting a mere phone call”. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the case of petitioner also falls on the same ground and the petitioner was falsely implicated and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is pointed out that petitioner was refused to grant anticipatory bail only for the reason that petitioner was allegedly involved in other cases. It is submitted that petitioner was an accused only in one more case and he was acquitted in the said case. BA 77/2009 -3- 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the peculiar circumstance in which the 2nd accused was granted anticipatory bail. 7. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed:- (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and in the event of his arrest, if any, he shall be released on bail, on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or BA 77/2009 -4- influence any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.