High Court Kerala High Court

Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Jayan vs State Of Kerala on 14 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3507 of 2010()


1. JAYAN, S/O.MOHANAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :14/06/2010

 O R D E R
                             K. HEMA, J.
                      ---------------------------
                     B.A. No. 3507 of 2010
                 ------------------------------------
              Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010

                             O R D E R

This Petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offence is under Section 394 of the Indian

Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 22.05.2010 at about

1.45 P.M., while the de facto complainant was standing on the

road and talking to some others, he was forcibly taken into a car

and thereafter accused nos.1 to 3 hit him with a hitting block and

thereafter Rs. 4000/- was taken from his bag.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no such

incident as alleged by the prosecution has occurred. De facto

complainant’s father owes Rs. 4000/- to the petitioner and he

had gone to his house, for getting money back. He refused to

pay back the money and there was a quarrel between them. But

now an allegation is made that de facto complainant was

abducted in a car, which is absolutely false.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that hitting block was used by the first accused to

assault the de facto complainant and the recovery is not so far

B.A. No. 3507 of 2010 2

effected. Petitioner is required for interrogation for effecting the

recovery. The money snatched away from the de facto

complainant is also to be recovered.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner (A1)

is required for interrogation and recovery of the articles involved

in the offence. Considering serious nature of the allegations

made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, I

am not satisfied of the counter allegations made. Petitioner is

bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-

operate with the investigation without any delay.

Petition is dismissed.

K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln