IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6234 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.342/2008 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA PETITIONER (S): 4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------- VINOD, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, K.R.PURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6234 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 341 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 15.5.2008, A1 to A4, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted de facto complainant. Iron rod was also used to commit the offence and de facto complainant sustained a fracture to his right forearm. 3. Petitioner is the fourth accused in the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated at a belated stage. The name of the petitioner is not in the FI statement. He was only referred to as a person who can be identified. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no specific allegation against petitioner, except that he beat him. In the body note of the de facto complainant, no injury was noted, except abrasions. The second accused and the third accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court and BA No.6234/08 2 the fourth accused stand on the same footing since they were referred to as persons identifiable by sight. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Though earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on 7.8.2008 and at that time, the petitioner was not aware of granting of anticipatory bail to the third accused and the said fact could not be brought to the notice of this court, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that A2 and A3 were granted anticipatory bail for specific reasons. There was some difference between the details of the second accused which are shown in the FI statement and his actual details. Therefore, he was granted anticipatory bail. As far the third accused is concerned, name of the accused was not mentioned in the FI statement and he was referred to as a person identifiable by sight. But, it was established at the time of hearing that de facto complainant knew the name of the third accused, as there was a previous incident between parties. The reference to A3 only as a person identifiable, in the above circumstances persuaded this court to grant anticipatory bail. 5. In such circumstances, granting of anticipatory bail to BA No.6234/08 3 those accused cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted that de facto complainant sustained fracture and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that the crime was registered early as on May 2008 and the petitioner was not available for arrest and the investigation is in a stand still. 6. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the petitioner and the accused 2 and 3 to whom anticipatory bail is granted stand on different footing. They cannot be said to be similarly placed. The ground of which anticipatory bail was granted to the second and fourth accused are not clearly applicable to petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke provision under Section 438 Crl.P.C. except by stating that others were granted anticipatory bail. 7. The petitioner will be required for arrest and interrogation by the police. He was not available for arrest for the past more than five months. But, he has filed the said anticipatory bail application without co-operating with the investigation. I am fully satisfied that there is absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. BA No.6234/08 4 Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl