IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5040 of 2008(F) ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 203/2005 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) .................... PETITIONER/ 6TH ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHAJI @ MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.MUSTHAFFA, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5040 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, in pursuance to a conspiracy, accused nos.3 and 4 stabbed the defacto complainant and snatched the bag containing Rs.8 lakhs. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a crime was registered. The alleged offences are under Sections 392 and 395 read with Section 120B of IPC. 3. Petitioner is the sixth accused who allegedly conspired to commit the offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FI statement, only two persons were involved. The defacto complainant implicated only two persons in snatching away the bag and also in stabbing. The crime was registered as early as on 3.10.2005. But, the petitioner was brought into the array of accused, only as per a report filed on 8.10.2005. Petitioner is absolutely innocent and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned public prosecutor opposed this bail BA No.5040/08 2 application and submitted that as per the case diary, petitioner is the sixth accused who participated in the conspiracy to commit the offence. He had gone abroad after commission of the offence. He was not available for arrest for the past three years. The investigation has not been completed, since A4, who actually participated in the offence is not so far arrested. As per the FI statement itself, this incident was witnessed by a head load worker, who was also attacked by the accused. The assailants left the place in a car, and investigation is going on. Only a portion of the amount stolen is recovered and even the recovery is not over. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, it is likely that the petitioner may have materials within exclusive knowledge which can be ascertained only by interrogation. Considering the stage of investigation also, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl