IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3601 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.350/08 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- HANEEFA, S/O ABU, PUTHENPALATH HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR VENGOLA VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3601 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. Petitioner is the third accused in the crime registered under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 21.2.2008 at about 12.15 AM, accused three in number forcibly taken away a gold chain weighing 3.5 sovereigns and one bracelet weighing one sovereign from the defacto complainant, catching hold of his neck and intimidating him under threat of death showing a knife. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is a Poojari and he did not file any complaint on the date of occurrence. But, after about 40 days, he lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, copy of which is Annexure A1. There is absolutely no reason for the long delay in lodging the complaint and the petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that sufficient reason is given for the long delay in lodging the complaint in Annexure A1 itself. Defacto complainant was intimidated by the assailants and he was fearing danger from BA.3601/08 2 the petitioner and hence the delay. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that recovery is to be effected and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the manner in which the offences allegedly committed and the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, I am satisfied that granting of anticipatory bail will adversely affect the investigation. Hence this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.