IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4784 of 2008()
1. P.SHYAMJITH, 23 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No.4784 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 392 and 414 of the
Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, while de facto
complainant was proceeding in a two-wheeler, accused 1, 2, 6 and 7
followed him in two motorbikes and hit against the vehicle, in which
he was travelling. When he fell down, he was assaulted and
Rs.1,70,000/- and 2 Kg of gold ornaments were taken away from his
possession. On investigation, it is revealed that three more persons
are involved in the crime.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He was not identified
by the de facto complainant. But, he is falsely implicated now. As
per the FIS, he mentioned that three persons had committed the
offences at the scene, out of which the description of two persons
alone are stated and the descriptions of third person are not
mentioned. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail,
it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that accused 1, 2, 6 and 7 were at the scene. The
BA.4784/08 2
investigation revealed the role of 7th accused. Petitioner is the 7th
accused. Accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 were arrested and some of the
stolen articles were recovered from their possession. The materials
collected in investigation clearly reveal the involvement of
petitioner in the crime and hence it is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in an offence of
this nature, considering the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. The incident happened
as early as on 2.11.2007 and about one year has elapsed now and
all the accused could not be arrested.
Petitioner is directed to 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.