IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4589 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.281/08 OF ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------- REJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KOTTASSERIL HOUSE, KANAKKARY VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4589 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Section 394 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner, along with other accused, manhandled the de facto complainant and snatched away Rs.3,500/- from his pocket and thus committed the offence. 3. learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The petitioner is an auto rickshaw driver running his auto rickshaw at Ettumanoor. On two days prior to the lodging of the first information report in this case, there was an incident involving the petitioner's brother and the employees of the bar. The petitioner along with his brother, (who had come from Baroda), wanted to purchase some chicken from the bar hotel for the children to celebrate the visit of the brother. Accordingly, the petitioner's brother went inside the hotel and the petitioner was waiting outside the hotel. One of his neighbours came near to the petitioner and asked about his BA.4589/08 2 brother. When he said that he was inside the hotel purchasing chicken, the neighbour went inside the hotel 4. Thereafter, there was some quarrel in respect of the delay in getting the packet. There was a push and pull and some plates happened to be broken. Though the petitioner and his brother offered to pay the cost of the plates, the bar manager was not prepared to accept the same, but threatened them that he would teach a lesson. Thereafter, the petitioner's brother went back to Baroda, but the bar manager, with the assistance of the police falsely implicated the petitioner this crime. Except this crime, no other crime is registered against the petitioner. The petitioner is not a drunkard and the bar manager has no case that the petitioner used to go to the bar and have any drink from there. 5. No crime is registered against the petitioner, involving offence of this nature. It was also pointed out that as per the instructions given to the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner is stated to be a “trouble maker” and that he is habitually involved in offences like this. If that be true, the petitioner will be known to the employees of the bar. But, as per the First Information Statement, the petitioner's name was not given. The petitioner was implicated only after one month of the date of lodging of the FIR. Taking all BA.4589/08 3 these facts into consideration, it is submitted that bail may be granted to the petitioner. It is also submitted that no weapon was used by the petitioner for the offence and no injury was caused, even as per the allegations made by the prosecution. 6. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted on instructions that the petitioner is habitually engaged in committing offence of this nature by waiting outside the bar and that he is a “trouble maker” inside the bar and outside. Therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the petitioner, it is submitted. It is conceded that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and he was implicated only after about 1 ½ months of the date of occurrence. 7. On hearing both sides, it is clear that though the alelgation is that the petitioner is a “trouble maker” and that he was habitually engaged in creating problem inside and outside the bar hotel and also commit offence by snatching away money from persons who are coming out of the bar hotel etc., and though the petitioner is admittedly an auto rickshaw driver in the same locality, his name is not mentioned in the FIR. It is conceded that no other crime is registered against the petitioner, though as against other accused there are crimes of similar nature. The complaint is BA.4589/08 4 given by the manager of the bar. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.