IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5711 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.675/2008 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ ABDULLA KUTTY, S/O.BAPPU, MADATHIL PARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.MARANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT/ STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K. S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5711 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, A1 to A5 in furtherance of common intention formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and armed with deadly weapons and attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant, by assaulting with iron pipes, knife etc. On a complaint lodged by him, a crime was registered under the above said sections. 3. Petitioner is the 4th accused in the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is implicated in the crime only because of the vengeance of the defacto complainant towards the petitioner who is none other than his father-in-law. An incident happened involving A1 to A3 and the defacto complainant, on account of some business transactions, but, the petitioner's name was dragged in only because of the grudge. BA No.5711/08 2 4. Petitioner has not taken part in the assault even as per the prosecution case and petitioner's daughter is the wife of the defacto complainant and she had lodged a complaint as crime No.608/08 under Section 498(A) IPC against the defacto complainant and his close relatives. The defacto complainant had also married another lady while earlier marriage was subsisting. Because of all these, relationship was strained and petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was present at the scene. The assailants came together in a car, A1, A2, A3 and A5 got out of the car, and A4 was sitting inside the car. A4 had hired the other accused to commit these offences and they had come prepared, armed with deadly weapons like iron pipes, knife etc. A fracture of the rib was caused to the defacto complainant. A2 and A3 were apprehended by the people of the locality from the spot itself. In such circumstances, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature BA No.5711/08 3 of allegations made against the petitioner and the nature of the involvement in the offence, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner especially since he could not establish his innocence at this stage. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl