IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7904 of 2008()
1. LIJIN.K.,AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. PADMARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 7904 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 307 read with section 149 of IPC. According to prosecution,
petitioner (A5) along with 7 persons formed into unlawful
assembly and armed with sword, iron pipe, sticks etc. assaulted
de facto complainant and attempted to commit murder. This was
on 16.12.2006 at 8 p.m.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is not so far arrested. but recently on 3.12.2008 there
is a threat that petitioner will be arrested. A4 was taken into
custody on 18.12.2006 and he was brutally manhandled in the
police station and he was produced before court only on
20.12.2006 and the court granted him bail knowing the fact
that he was tortured. It is submitted that police is now after
petitioner for arresting him and it is threatened that petitioner
will be tortured like the 4th accused.
[B.A.No.7904/08] 2
4. Petitioner was very much available in the locality
and he was working in Kannur in G4S Cash Service (India) Private
Ltd. as evidenced by the certificate issued. It is also submitted
that petitioner was not so far arrested only because he is
innocent. It is pointed out that in the first information statement,
the name of petitioner is not mentioned and no overt act is
alleged against petitioner of having used any weapon.
Therefore, it is requested that anticipatory bail may be granted.
5. This petition is seriously opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that the victim was assaulted by 9 persons
and F.I.R. was registered suo motu by the police. The name of the
first accused alone was mentioned in the F.I.R. and names of
other accused did not find a place in the first information
statement only because those names were not known to police.
But on the same day on 16.12.2008 etc. the injured was
questioned and he had implicated all the accused including
petitioner by name. It is not correct to say that petitioner is not
an accused and he is not made an accused till 3.12.2008. It is
also submitted that even as per the allegations in the first
information statement, sticks were used by accused nos. 3 to 8
and the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that
no specific overt act is alleged against petitioner of having used
[B.A.No.7904/08] 3
any weapon is not correct. The crime is registered only in
16.12.2006 and petitioner is required for arrest and interrogation
and recovery of weapon. Therefore, it is not fit case to grant
anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
On hearing both sides and considering the nature of
allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am
satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. More
than two years have elapsed now and petitioner’s name finds a
place in the array of accused as early as in 2006 itself. Petitioner
is required for arrest and interrogation. However, taking into
consideration the allegation that 4th accused was tortured at the
police station, I find that a direction can be issued to petitioner to
surrender before the Magistrate court concerned and co-operate
with the investigation.
In the result, petitioner is directed to surrender
before the Magistrate court within seven days
from today.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.
[B.A.No.7904/08] 4