High Court Kerala High Court

K.V.Sandeep vs State on 2 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.V.Sandeep vs State on 2 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3451 of 2008()


1. K.V.SANDEEP, AGED 30 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. T.P.JIJIL, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN,
3. V.VIJITH, AGED 27 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.PREMNATH (E)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :02/06/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K. HEMA, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                             B.A.No. 3451 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008

                                      O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. According to the prosecution, the petitioners came in a motor

cycle on 6-3-2008 at about 9.30 a.m. and threw country bombs on the

defacto-complainant, who was on a bicycle, purchasing newspaper. He

sustained injury and another person also sustained injury in the accident. A

crime under sections 308, 324 read with section 34 IPC and sections 3 and

4 of the Explosive Substances Act was registered against the petitioners on

a complaint made by the defacto-complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were not implicated as per the F.I.S. Their names were not

stated. The allegation is that persons identifiable by sight committed the

crime. Therefore the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made

and they are only workers and they have nothing to do with the offence. It

is also brought to my notice that this is allegedly a politically motivated

crime and that there is a clash between the N.D.F. workers and the B.J.P.

Workers.

BA 3451/2008 -2-

4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on investigation,

the petitioners are arrayed as accused 1 to 3. There are sufficient materials

to connect the petitioners in the crime. The petitioners were absconding

and they could not be arrested so far. Their custodial interrogation is

essential for an effective investigation and this application is opposed. On

hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail.

Hence, the application is dismissed.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.