IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2632 of 2010()
1. BABU KURIAKOSE, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.2632 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 120B, 307 and
34 of IPC. According to prosecution, accused numbers 2 to 5, in
furtherance of common intention, assaulted de facto complainant
on 02/08/2008 at about 2 p.m and inflicted injuries on him by
using granite piece. It is further alleged that petitioner hatched a
criminal conspiracy with accused numbers 2 to 5 and pursuant to
such conspiracy, the offences were committed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
was working as a Head Master in a school in Nagaland on the date
of occurrence on 02/08/2008. Annexure C is the certificate issued
from the school and it shows that petitioner was attending school
on the alleged date of occurrence. It is also submitted that
petitioner’s name is not mentioned in FIS.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that case diary reveals serious allegations are made
against petitioner. He is the person behind the commission of
offence. He is the person who had arranged money for the
accused who committed the offences at the scene. The phone
call details were taken by police and it is seen from such details
B.A No.2632 OF 2010 2
that petitioner and his wife were making frequent calls to second
accused before the incident and after the incident. Case Diary
reveals sufficient materials to connect accused with the crime, it
is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of
the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail. As per Annexure C, petitioner is stated to have
been attending Sunday service on 02/08/2010. The plea of malibi
may not be quite relevant, since prosecution has no case that
petitioner was present at the scene on the date of occurrence.
The allegations made against petitioner are under Section 120B
and according to police, sufficient materials are collected to
connect him with the offence of conspiracy. Offence allegedly is
committed as early as in 2008 and two years have elapsed.
Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv