IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 77 of 2009()
1. KABEER, S/O. SIDHIQUE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :28/01/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
B.A. No. 77 OF 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 28th day of January,2009
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 342, 394 read
with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3)
along with other accused made a phone call to de facto
complainant on the pretext that there was a mobile phone for
sale and accordingly, when he went to them, they forcibly took
him in an autorickshaw and robbed an amount of Rs.3,200/-, a
mobile phone and wrist watch. They also demanded Rs.1 lakh
and made de facto complainant to call his brother to bring
Rs.1 lakh and thereby committed various offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is an
absolutely false case. This was filed only as a retaliation to
another complaint filed against de facto complainant. De facto
complainant married the 2nd accused’s sister and they were not
in good terms. De facto complainant’s wife filed a complaint
under section 498, 312 and 313 read with section 34 IPC against
BA 77/2009 -2-
de facto complainant and he was remanded in the said case in
May, 2008. Because of this, de facto complainant was having
enmity towards his wife and his family members. So, after he was
released from jail, in the next month, he lodged the present
complaint against his wife’s brother (A2) and his friends, it is
submitted.
4. The 2nd accused filed an anticipatory bail application
before the Sessions Court and as per order dated 14-8-2008 in
Crl.M.C.no.1328/2008 the court was pleased to accept the
contentions and granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd accused. It
was held by the learned Sessions Judge that “it is not easy to
believe that de facto complainant who is the 1st accused in Crime
no.447/2008 had willingly gone to the present petitioner on
getting a mere phone call”. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that the case of petitioner also falls on the same
ground and the petitioner was falsely implicated and therefore,
he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is pointed
out that petitioner was refused to grant anticipatory bail only for
the reason that petitioner was allegedly involved in other cases.
It is submitted that petitioner was an accused only in one more
case and he was acquitted in the said case.
BA 77/2009 -3-
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner
may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer
and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in the peculiar circumstance in which the
2nd accused was granted anticipatory bail.
7. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory
bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the
following order is passed:-
(1) Petitioner shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer within seven days from
today and in the event of his arrest, if any, he
shall be released on bail, on his executing a
bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties
each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the learned Magistrate, on the following
conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall make himself available
for interrogation by the Investigating
Officer as and when directed and co-
operate with the investigation.
ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or
BA 77/2009 -4-
influence any witness or tamper with
evidence or commit any offence while
on bail.
This petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.