High Court Kerala High Court

Binoj Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Binoj Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7748 of 2008()


1. BINOJ KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :09/02/2009

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
                      ----------------------------------
                      B.A. No.7748 OF 2008
                      ----------------------------------
            Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009


                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147,

148, 324, 302, 120(B) and 149 of I.P.C. According to

prosecution, on 28.09.2008, accused nos.1, 2, 8 to 11

conspired to commit murder of the deceased and accused

nos.1 to 6 committed the offences. Accused nos.1 to 5, in a car

and sixth accused, in a motor bike went to the deceased, while

he was talking with the defacto complainant on 01.10.2008 at

about 6 p.m. Both of them ran away, the deceased was chased

and he was brutally attacked with swords, axe etc. and he

sustained fatal injuries and he succumbed to injuries from the

hospital.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that

petitioner is implicated on the basis of a statement given by

the co-accused. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made.

He is implicated only because he is a worker of the BJP and

the deceased is a CPM worker.

B.A.No.7748 of 2008
2

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that there is ample evidence in the case diary to

connect petitioner with the crime. Petitioner is the ninth

accused. He had taken part in the conspiracy and this was

witnessed by CW 37. The incident occurred as early as on

01.10.2008 and petitioner is not available for arrest and

interrogation. Petitioner is required for interrogation. This is

not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of

the allegations made and the fact that petitioner is required

for interrogation to elicit facts within his exclusive knowledge,

I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The

incident occurred as early as on 01.10.2008 and hence, the

following order is passed :

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the

investigating officer forthwith and co-operate

with the investigation. Whether he surrenders

or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and

proceed in accordance with law.

B.A.No.7748 of 2008
3

ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by

petitioner in this crime will be entertained by

this court.

The petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

pac