IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3769 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.178/08 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 &4 :- -------------------------------------------- 1. REMESH @ RAESH, S/O RAJU, IDAMANAKUZHI PUTHEN VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. SURESH, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, EDAMANAKUZHI, VAYALIL VEEDU, ATHIYANNOOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3769 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in the crime. According to the prosecution, the first accused was caught red handed by the local people with sandal wood worth Rs.2,000/-. The local people informed the police and they went to the spot and took the accused into custody along with stolen article. A crime was registered under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of Crl.P.C. Subsequently, it is altered to Sections 379 and 34 IPC. The petitioners are accused nos. 2 and 4 who were allegedly present along with the first accused, when the people of the locality tried to capture him. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident occurred on 1.5.2008, early in the morning at about 1.30 a.m. The FIR was registered after two hours, at 3.30 a.m. But, in the FIR, petitioners names are not mentioned and they are not implicated. According to the learned counsel for the BA No.3769/08 2 petitioners, they are falsely implicated, since, as the neighbours of the first accused they went to the police station on getting information that the first accused is arrested and on seeing that the first accused was injured, insisted the police to register case against the persons who inflicted injuries on accused. The assailants included police officials also, who manhandled the first accused. This infuriated the police and hence, the petitioners were subsequently added to the array of the accused. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that as per the statements of the witnesses, who had caught hold of the first accused, there found four persons at the scene and three of them ran away. The petitioners are stated to be those two persons. The petitioners were implicated by their names by the witnesses of the locality. They could not be arrested only because they escaped from the scene. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the recovery is effected. It can also be seen that the first accused was handed over to the police by the people of the locality who caught him red-handed. The police got the information and reached the place at 1.30 a.m. in the morning and necessarily some enquiry BA No.3769/08 3 would have been made at the spot regarding the incident. Whether an enquiry is made or not it is only natural that the mob would narrate the entire details of police. In all probabilities, if petitioners were involved, their names would be mentioned. Or at least the involvement of more than the first accused would be stated. But, in the First Information Statement, names of the petitioners are missing. Nothing is mentioned about the three persons who allegedly escaped from the scene. 6. The FI statement is recorded only after two hours of the alleged incident and the first accused must have been questioned also prior to this but the petitioners names and the involvement of any person other than the first accused was mentioned in the FI Statement. Admittedly, the first accused was injured. In the light of the allegations made against the police, regarding false implication, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail has to be granted to the petitioners, failing which, it is likely that they will be harassed. Hence, the following order is passed: The petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail BA No.3769/08 4 on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on condition that the petitioners shall co-operate with investigation. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl