IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5787 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 137/2008 OF PERUNAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ VISHWAN @ VISHWANATHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWHARAN NAIR, MEPPURATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUNADI VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR, PERUNAD POLICESTATION 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5787 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 142, 148, 324, 379, 427, 506(i) read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant used to harass the daughter of 7th accused. Therefore, accused 1 to 7 conspired to assault de facto complainant, who is an autorickshaw driver. Accordingly, 6th accused hired the autorickshaw, which was driven by de facto complainant, and took him to a distant place while accused 1 to 5 stopped the autorickshaw and they also got into the autorickshaw and the autorickshaw was taken to another place and all the accused committed the various offences. First accused asked the others to kill him, 2nd accused beat him with stick, 3rd accused put chilly powder, 4th accused assaulted with iron rod and 5th accused attacked with stone and de facto complainant sustained injuries. Rs.1,000/- and a driving licence were taken away from his pocket forcibly. Gold chain of one sovereign fell down from his pocket. BA 5787/08 -2- 3. Petitioner is the 1st accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no overt act is alleged against petitioner, except his statement to “kill de facto complainant”. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. The daughter of the 7th accused had given a complaint against de facto complainant stating that he was harassing her. Parties were called to the police station and thereafter they were coming out of the police station. No incident as alleged has taken place. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 5 and 6 were arrested and others are yet to be arrested. The incident occurred as early as on 30-6-2008 and accused are not available for arrest. Petitioner is the 1st accused and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that in the nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The defence put forward by learned counsel for petitioner is not clear from the submissions made by him. The incident occurred in pursuance of a conspiracy and as per the allegations made, an unlawful assembly was also made. Petitioner was present at the scene and he had exhorted to kill de facto complainant. The BA 5787/08 -3- incident happened as early as on 30-6-2008 and petitioner was not arrested so far, since he allegedly evaded arrest. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.