IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6789 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2075/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA Cr.No.430/08 OF SULTHAN BATHERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ A.K.MANOHARAN AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, ARATHILPOOCHIRAYIL HOUSE, RESIDING AT KUPPADI, KUPPADI VILLAGE, S.BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SULTHANBATHERY CR.NO. 430/2008, OF SULTHANBATHERY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6789 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant's brother and petitioner (7th accused) had some financial transactions. To settle the same, 7th accused arranged accused 1 to 6 to abduct de facto complainant to pressurise settlement of the transaction. On information, the police chased the vehicle, in which de facto complainant was abducted and accused 1 to 5 were arrested from the spot and petitioner's involvement was revealed on questioning them. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. As per the prosecution allegation, he had not taken part in the abduction. He has no dealing with the de facto complainant, going by the prosecution allegations. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is the man behind the incident. He has arranged accused 1 to 6 to abduct the de facto complainant and this BA.6789/08 2 was done to pressurise the settlement of financial transaction between de facto complainant's brother and 7th accused. His involvement was revealed on arresting accused 1 to 5 and questioning them. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The incident happened as early as on 2.10.2008 and petitioner has not surrendered before the Magistrate court or before the investigating officer and hence, investigation is at a standstill. Petitioner is required for investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this direction and observation, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.