IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7378 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.730/08 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- SEBY, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, MAMBRAPILLY, KANJIRAPALLY DESOM, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7378 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 427, 506(ii), 153 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3, in furtherance of a common intention, trespassed into the compound of the house of de facto complainant and committed mischief by damaging glass of the tipper lorry parked in the property and also the window glasses. First accused used a sword for the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that accused 1 and 2 were arrested and they were released on bail. Petitioner is implicated as the third accused only because he happened to be the friend of first accused. He is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. It is alleged that petitioner was waiting outside the compound in a motorcycle. There is no case that petitioner has committed any offence and therefore, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the First Information Statement itself it is alleged that offence was committed by first accused and two other BA.7378/08 2 identifiable persons. Name of first accused alone was shown in the FIR, but there is a specific allegation that two other identifiable persons were also involved in the offence and overt act was also alleged against them. On arrest of first accused, it was revealed that petitioner is one of those persons, who were identifiable by sight and therefore he was implicated as the third accused. It is not correct to say that petitioner has not participated in the offence. There is a definite allegation that he also had trespassed into the house and committed the offences. On hearing both sides, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, Petitioner is required for investigation. Hence, he is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Whether he surrenders or not, petitioner will be at liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.