IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4461 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.17/07 OF PANAGADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- T.M.SALI AGED 29, S/O.MURALI, THANNIKKAL VEEDU KUMBALANGI PO., BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SMT.S.THENRAJAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, CRIME 17/07, PANANGADU POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4461 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148 and 324 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, on 10.1.2007 at about 9.30 p.m., a group of persons, including the petitioner, under the leadership of the first accused, attacked the de facto complainant while he was riding a motor cycle. The de facto complainant was injured. The accused formed into an unlawful assembly and they were armed with weapons also which include contraband articles also under the Arms Act. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. He was subsequently added, and hence there is a false implication. He was implicated on the basis of an alleged confession statement, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the FIR only the name of the first accused was mentioned. But, the fact that there were ten others also in the incident is revealed in BA.4461/08 2 the First Information Statement itself. On 25.1.2007, during the course of investigation, it was disclosed that the petitioner is also an accused in the crime and that he beat the de facto complainant with an iron rod and inflicted injury on him. The second accused was arrested only subsequent to this. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation for recovery of weapon which he had used for committing the offence. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was absconding for the past more than one year, since January, 2007, after the incident. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature, especially since petitioner is required for effecting recovery and custodial interrogation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.