IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 /22RD SRAVANA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 5081 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.113/05 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1; ------------------------------ ALI.K.K., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KHADER, KARAKUNNEL HOUSE, MUDALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT:1 -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE C.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON 13/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5081 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 436 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner, along with four others, set fire to the automobile workshop belonging to the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident occurred three years back on 21.2.2005 at about 3.55 a.m and as per the statement given by the de facto complainant in connection with the incident before the police, immediately after the incident, he had no suspicion against anybody. Police and Fire Force came to the spot immediately after the incident, but they could not find out reason for the fire. After investigation, the case was referred as “undetected” and a refer report was also filed. It was accepted also by the court below. 4. However, after three years of the incident, the de facto complainant again filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner, who is the first accused, with the help of four other accused set fire to the automobile workshop due to business rivalry. But first accused was running a workshop in the close vicinity. The BA.5081/08 2 allegation of business rivalry is an after thought, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident, according to de facto complainant, occurred due to business rivalry and that the petitioner was working in the automobile workshop of the de facto complainant. But, later he moved out and started another automobile workshop nearby. On hearing both sides, I find that it is only just and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: (i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. (ii) Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer as and when directed. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.