IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1680 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.74/2010 OF BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- MOHAMMED ASHRAF, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.MIODEENKUNHI P.A., PULIKKOOR,P.O.SHIRIBAGILU,,KUDLU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- Bail Application No.1680 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 395 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. According to prosecution, on 2.3.2010, at about 11 p.m., while the de facto complainant was travelling in a motor cycle, the petitioner along with four others came in three motor cycles, assaulted the de facto complainant and forcibly took away two mobile phones and a purse containing Rs.800/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. As per the allegations, five persons have come on “a” motor cycle and it is highly improbable that five persons can travel on a motor cycle. It is also submitted that Sim card was taken away and it was handed over to the de facto complainant itself, as per the allegations in the First Information Report. This is also improbable, it is submitted. BA. No.1680 of 2010 2 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations accused had come in three motor cycles. Two mobile phones were snatched away. The de facto complainant was also assaulted in the course of robbery. 6. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the need for interrogation and the recovery of the articles robbed, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 2.3.2010 and the petitioner is bound to surrender before the police at the earliest and co- operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. nj.