IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6231 of 2008()
1. KOYILATHU SREERAG, S/O.RAVEEDNRAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. S.H.O, CHOKLI POLICE STATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :07/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 6231of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
324 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 5
of the Explosives and Substance Act. According to prosecution,
the petitioner (third accused), along with 22 others, formed
into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences by
throwing a country bomb against the de facto complainant,
consequent to which, the de facto complainant and another
person sustained injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. No
specific overt act is attributed against the petitioner. The
complaint is lodged out of a political rivalry. The petitioner is a
worker of SFI and the de facto complainant is a worker of BJP.
Petitioner is a B.Com student and in case he is arrested and
detained, it will affect his entire career, it is submitted.
BA.6231/08 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner’s name find a place in the FIR
itself. The petitioner was a member of the unlawful assembly
and one of the members of the unlawful assembly has thrown
the bomb and therefore, petitioner is also liable for the act
committed by such person. In the nature of the allegations
made, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail and the offence
was committed due to political rivalry. Learned Public
Prosecutor also submitted that 20 persons are yet to be
identified and in case the petitioner is granted anticipatory
bail, it will adversely affect the investigation.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that on
considering the nature of offence committed and the
allegations made against the petitioner, it is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail. Even though no specific overt act is
alleged against the petitioner, (except his presence as a
member of unlawful assembly) he has been implicated as an
accused in the First Information Statement. I am satisfied that
the petitioner would be required for interrogation and
granting of anticipatory bail will not be fit and proper.
BA.6231/08 3
The alleged incident is occurred as early as on 4.9.2008
and about one month has elapsed. None of the accused could
be arrested so far. The investigation is at a stand still.
Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender
before the investigating officer within 10 days
from today and co-operate with the investigation
and make himself available for interrogation.
With this direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.