IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5705 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.858/08 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/8TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUMESH S/O. SUGUNAN, PONGADATHEKKETHIL, KANNIMELCHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5705 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 452, 326, 307, 120(B) and 109 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant was assaulted by four persons and the petitioner and others were waiting outside. They formed into an unlawful assembly and attempted to commit murder and on a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant, a crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 452, 326, 307, 120(B) and 109 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the 8th accused, is falsely implicated on a second thought. As per the First Information Statement, the de facto complainant had clearly stated that four persons had gone into his house and assaulted him and two persons were waiting outside. Involvement of only six persons was revealed as per the First Information Statement and others are now being added, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on similar contentions the 9th accused had filed an BA.5705/08 2 anticipatory bail application and this court has considered the contentions in detail and dismissed the same. The petitioner stands on the same footing. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioner is also similarly placed as that of the 9th accused and I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. I do not reiterate what I had stated in the earlier anticipatory bail application. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.