IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5032 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.333/2008 OF VIYYUR POLICE STATION .................... APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.1 --------------------------------------- PRIYAN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONGANAMKADU P.O., KURICHIKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYANAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, VIYYUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5032 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 399 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with other accused were found on 18.6.2008 at about 1 a.m., making preparation to commit dacoity. On seeing the police, petitioner ran away from the scene and others were arrested. Chilly powder, iron rod etc. were seized from the possession of the accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that it may not be correct to presume that if some persons are sitting and talking to each other at about 1 a.m., in the morning and chilly powder and iron rod are seized that they are making preparation to commit dacoity. Even if the prosecution allegations are accepted, the articles seized can be used also for an assault and it cannot be said that they were making preparation to commit dacoity. Those can be used for other offences also. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was not BA No.5032/2008 2 involved in any dacoity case before. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner ran away from the scene and he could not be arrested from the spot. The incident happened on 18.6.2008. Though two months have elapsed, petitioner was not available for arrest. Petitioner is involved in similar six other crimes involving offences under the NDPS and IPC. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the nature of the allegations made, whether the offence involved falls clearly under Section 399 IPC or not, it would appear that petitioner and others gathered for committing some offence. Anticipatory bail is not intended for such offenders. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl