High Court Kerala High Court

Dominic vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dominic vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4835 of 2008()


1. DOMINIC, AGED 29,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :04/08/2008

 O R D E R
                               K.HEMA, J.
               -------------------------------------------------------
                 Bail Application No.4835 of 2008
               -------------------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008


                                  O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 324,

308 and 34 IPC. Petitioner is the 5th accused in the crime.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the

petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner is

admittedly a close neighbour of the defacto complainant and

petitioner is known to the defacto complainant also. Defacto

complainant’s brother had attacked the petitioner in an earlier

incident and the wound certificate is produced as Annexure III.

Because of this incident, petitioner was falsely implicated in this

case, by giving a subsequent statement, it is submitted. The

reason stated for crucial omission to mention in FIR was

explained by the defacto complainant stating that he was

suffering much pain and hence, he omitted to mention the name.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor

submitted that the petitioner’s involvement is clearly revealed in

the subsequent statement made by the defacto complainant. It is

BA No.4835/08 2

also submitted that the occurrence witnesses also stated that the

petitioner was involved in the offence. However, it is conceded

that no weapons were used by the petitioner and hence, he will

not be required for the purpose of recovery of any weapon.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the

petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence,

the following order is passed:

Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of

his arrest, if any, on his executing bond for

Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer

on condition that he will report before the

Investigating Officer as and when directed and

co-operate with the investigation.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl