IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3921 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.25/06 OF KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ PRASANTH, S/O.PRAKASH, NEAR RAILWAY GATE KARIYIL WARD,KAZHAKUTTOM VILLAGE, BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3921 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 12th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused nos.1 to 8 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased and pursuant to such conspiracy, accused nos.1 to 6 went to the spot and assaulted him and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. The petitioner (8th accused) was asked to wait at a junction to see whether police is coming. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Even as per the prosecution case, he was only waiting to see whether police was coming. Petitioner was not aware whether he was implicated in the offence. He was working abroad. The 1st, 2nd and 4th accused were acquitted after the trial. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner was absconding. The crime is of the year 2006. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is BA NO. 3921/10 2 submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner is implicated as an accused as early as in 2006. His arrest could not be effected, since he was absconding. Admittedly, petitioner is working abroad. He has not surrendered before the court or before the Investigating Officer so far. The fact that the co- accused are acquitted is not ordinarily even a ground for quashing the charge against petitioner. Petitioner has not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. Further, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in favour of an absconder. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall, forthwith surrender before the Magistrate Court and co-operate with the trial. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs