High Court Kerala High Court

Asharaf.P.A vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Asharaf.P.A vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4748 of 2008()


1. ASHARAF.P.A,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, THORUGH THE STATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :29/07/2008

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.

                 -----------------------------------------
                        B.A.No.4748 of 2008
                 -----------------------------------------

                 Dated this the 29th        July, 2008

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. A crime was registered under Sections 452, 341, 324 and

308 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on a statement given by the

de facto complainant against three named persons and other

unnamed persons who are identifiable by sight.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the offence subsequently and he is

absolutely innocent of the allegations made. His name was not

shown in the FIR.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that co-accused were granted bail as per different bail

applications and the petitioner’s brother was also in judicial custody

and he was released on bail. The involvement of petitioner is

revealed during the course of investigation. This case relates to a

clash between CMP and CPM workers. The father of the petitioner

was attacked by CPM workers and he lodged a complaint and he

also strongly believed that he was attacked at the instance of the de

facto complainant herein. Therefore, his sons, who are petitioner

BA.4748/08 2

and first accused along with their associates, retaliated against the

de facto complainant, it is submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, I find that it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

This petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.