IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6385 of 2008()
1. JOY, S/O.JOHNSON, AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl.No. 6385 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences under Sections 379 and 34 of IPC.
According to prosecution, on 2.9.2008, while the de facto
complainant was walking along the road, the petitioner (A1)
along with another (A2) came in a motor cycle and the petitioner,
who was the pillion rider, snatched a chain from the de facto
complainant’s neck. The 2nd accused was arrested and
involvement of the first accused was revealed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence. Petitioner has
nothing to do with the first accused or the motorbike. The
registered owner of the motorbike is not made a party. There is a
dispute between the registered owner of the vehicle and the
petitioner in connection with money transaction. Second accused
was the friend of the R.C owner. When first accused was
arrested, the registered owner wanted the name of petitioner to
BA.6385/08 2
be implicated as the accused and accordingly, petitioner’s name
was mentioned by the co-accused. Except the confession
statement, there is nothing to implicate the petitioner.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the R.C owner was questioned by the police and
he had gone to the victim. It was stated by the victim that the
R.C owner was not the culprit. As per the statement of the R.C
owner, the petitioner is his friend, who had requested him to
give the bike and accordingly he had given the bike to the
petitioner and he used the same for commission of the offence.
Petitioner is required for interrogation and identification by the
victim and witnesses and in an offence of this nature, it may not
be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the only bare
assertions are made to support the defence case. There is no
supporting materials. No circumstance is pointed out to accept
the defence version. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature, especially
since petitioner is required for identification and interrogation
by the police.
BA.6385/08 3
Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer within seven days from today
and co-operate with the investigation.
With this direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.