IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 56 of 2009() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.276/2008 OF THE KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION. ........... APPLICANT(S) /2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------ SHAJIN PRAKASH, CHANIPLAVILA VEEDU, LOUREPURAM, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O. BY ADV. MR.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 56 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with 34 the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with his brother (first accused) in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using a knife. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He is working as overseer and on the date of occurrence on 20.12.2008, petitioner was working in the office and Annexure-I is a certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer showing that he was present in the office from 10 am to 9.30 pm on the said date. It is also submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both the accused are involved in the crime and in the First Information Statement itself petitioner's name is BA.56/09 2 mentioned and various witnesses are questioned and all of them stated that accused have been taken part in the incident. A fracture is caused to de facto complainant and the knife used for committing the offence is to be recovered and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. At this stage, I find it difficult to rely upon Annexure-I. The crime was registered as early as on 20.12.2008. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.