IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4615 of 2008(F) ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 342/2008 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------ SAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, RESIDING AT KARODUKADAVU @ VELIYIL, K.R.PURAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S SIVAKUMAR,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4615 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent of the allegations made against him. He is falsely implicated in the case at a highly belated stage. The defacto complainant and the petitioner are known to each other and they belong to the same locality. The 1st accused is the brother of the petitioner and his name is specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. The omission to state the petitioner's name only indicates that the petitioner was not present at the scene. It is mentioned on the F.I.R. that persons identifiable by sight are also involved, but it cannot have any reference to the petitioner because the petitioner and the defacto complainant have sufficient acquaintance with each other. 4. In this connection it is brought to my notice that the children of the defacto complainant filed a complaint against the B.A.4615/2008 2 petitioner's brother and there was a counter case also. Thus, in connection with another incident which has occurred prior to the present case, there was a case and counter. In such circumstances, it is highly unbelievable that as a matter of fact the petitioner was not involved in the offence, it is submitted. The defacto complainant would not omit to notice presence of petitioner and to implicate him by mentioning his name in the F.I.R. itself especially since the parties are at loggerheads. The defacto complainant would have certainly mentioned the name of the petitioner, had the petitioner been involved. It is also pointed out in this context that another person was falsely implicated in this case and an anticipatory bail application was filed by him. It was granted by this Court as per Order dated 09.07.2008 in B.A.No.4124/2008. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is actually involved as per the subsequent statement and the defacto complainant has specifically implicated him also. However, he conceded that no explanation is given regarding the vital omission in the F.I.R. B.A.4615/2008 3 On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. There is no case for the defacto complainant that the petitioner has used any weapon against the defacto complainant. Therefore he may not be required for effecting any recovery. Hence the following order is passed: 1. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and make himself available for custodial interrogation. 2. Thereafter in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing 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. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac