IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5711 of 2008()
1. ABDULLA KUTTY, S/O.BAPPU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------
B.A.No.5711 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 324, 326, 307 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC.
According to prosecution, A1 to A5 in furtherance of common
intention formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, and
armed with deadly weapons and attempted to commit murder of
the defacto complainant, by assaulting with iron pipes, knife etc.
On a complaint lodged by him, a crime was registered under the
above said sections.
3. Petitioner is the 4th accused in the crime. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
implicated in the crime only because of the vengeance of the
defacto complainant towards the petitioner who is none other
than his father-in-law. An incident happened involving A1 to A3
and the defacto complainant, on account of some business
transactions, but, the petitioner’s name was dragged in only
because of the grudge.
BA No.5711/08 2
4. Petitioner has not taken part in the assault even as
per the prosecution case and petitioner’s daughter is the wife of
the defacto complainant and she had lodged a complaint as
crime No.608/08 under Section 498(A) IPC against the defacto
complainant and his close relatives. The defacto complainant
had also married another lady while earlier marriage was
subsisting. Because of all these, relationship was strained and
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the offence, it is
submitted.
5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner was present at the scene. The
assailants came together in a car, A1, A2, A3 and A5 got out of
the car, and A4 was sitting inside the car. A4 had hired the other
accused to commit these offences and they had come prepared,
armed with deadly weapons like iron pipes, knife etc. A fracture
of the rib was caused to the defacto complainant. A2 and A3
were apprehended by the people of the locality from the spot
itself. In such circumstances, it may not be proper to grant
anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature
BA No.5711/08 3
of allegations made against the petitioner and the nature of the
involvement in the offence, I do not think it fit to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner especially since he could not
establish his innocence at this stage.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl