IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6330 of 2008()
1. JOY, S/O.JOHNSON, AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 6330 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence is under Section 379 read with 34
of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner
(second accused), along with first accused, were travelling in a
motorcycle and on the way a chain was snatched by the
petitioner, who was the pillion rider on 5.9.2008. Second
accused was arrested by the police and petitioner’s
involvement was revealed.
3. The incident happened on 5.9.2008. Learned counsel
for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated
in the offence. Petitioner has nothing to do with the first
accused or the motorbike. The registered owner of the
motorbike is not made a party. There is a dispute between the
registered owner of the vehicle and the petitioner in
connection with money transaction. Second accused was the
friend of the R.C owner. When first accused was arrested, the
registered owner wanted the name of petitioner to be
B.A.6330/08 2
implicated as the accused and accordingly, petitioner’s name
was mentioned by the co-accused. Except the confession
statement, there is nothing to implicate the petitioner.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the R.C owner was questioned by the police
and he had gone to the victim. It was stated by the victim that
the R.C owner was not the culprit. As per the statement of the
R.C owner, the petitioner is his friend, who had requested him
to give the bike and accordingly he had given the bike to the
petitioner and he used the same for commission of the offence.
Petitioner is required for interrogation and identification by
the victim and witnesses and in an offence of this nature, it
may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the only bare
assertions are made to support the defence case. There is no
supporting materials. No circumstance is pointed out to accept
the defence version. In such circumstances, I am not inclined
to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature,
especially since petitioner is required for identification and
interrogation by the police.
B.A.6330/08 3
Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer within seven days from
today and co-operate with the investigation.
With this direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.