IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2781 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.1613/2009 OF PALLURUTHY POLCIE STATION. ............... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN,AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, THOTTUNKALTHARA VEEDU,SMASHANAM ROAD, PALLURUTHY,PALLURUTHY VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.2781 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323,324,395,452 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 22.11.2009 at about 8.40 pm, A1 to A4 entered into a hotel and A1 demanded some food. But there was some delay in supplying the food and a quarrel ensued with the defacto complainant, who is the owner of the hotel. Thereafter, A1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, beat defacto complainant and they also snatched away Rs.4,900/-. Thereby they committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner's name was not mentioned in the FI statement. He belongs to the same locality and he is a regular visitor in the hotel. If he was involved, his name would have been included in the FI statement. His name is included only after arrest of first and second accused, after about four months, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor B.A. No.2781/10 2 submitted that petitioner is the 4th accused. His name was not mentioned in the FI statement but it is revealed on investigation that he is also involved in the case. He had beaten defacto complainant with hands. First accused had used iron rod and second accused snatched Rs.4,900/- from the pocket of defacto complainant. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the nature of allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Of course, petitioner's name was brought in the array of accused, only after a few days, but that alone cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. There is only a bare assertion that petitioner is known to defacto complainant but, there is no material to support it. However, I make it clear that consideration for anticipatory bail and bail u/s 439 Cr.P.C. are different. Petitioner may seek bail in accordance with law. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.