IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5342 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.198/08 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION) APPLICANT/ ACCUSED NOS.2,3 & 4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. VELANKANNI MARIA SOOSAI, S/O.DAS, AGED 37 YEARS, R.G.D.DEPARTMENT, MATTUPETTY, MUNNAR. 2. SURESH, S/O.MUNIYANDI, AGED 24 YEARS, SILENT VALLEY ESTATE, IIND DIVISION, MUNNAR. 3. MANIKANDAN, S/O.THAVAMANI, AGED 29 YEARS GUDUVILA ESTATE, MUNNAR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.5342 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 398 and 354 of IPC. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant and his family members were proceeding to Munnar on a tour. When they reached the K.S.R.T.C. bus stand, one child in the group suddenly crossed the road and hit against the car driven by the first accused. No injury was sustained to the child but the mirror of the car was broken. There was an altercation between the two and the first accused demanded money for repairing the glass. The de facto complainant was not prepared to do so. Therefore, he came back with other accused and assaulted the de facto complainant and forcibly took away Rs.4,540/- and a mobile phone also from the pocket of the de facto complainant. 3. Petitioners are accused nos. 2, 3 and 4 in the crime. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. There was some altercations between the first accused and the de facto complainant and the group. They are conducting finance company and they are financially sound also. Since first accused was assaulted, he was hospitalised and a false case has been foisted against the first accused and petitioners under the influence of de facto complainant. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are sufficient materials in the case diary revealing the offence against petitioners. There is motive also for the first accused to commit the offence along with other accused. The involvement of the petitioners are also revealed in the case diary. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. Recovery of money is also not effected so far. On hearing both sides, in the nature of the allegations made and considering the nature of investigation to be required, I do think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. 3 Krs.