IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3769 of 2008()
1. REMESH @ RAESH, S/O RAJU,
... Petitioner
2. SURESH, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3769 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2008
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in the crime.
According to the prosecution, the first accused was caught red
handed by the local people with sandal wood worth Rs.2,000/-.
The local people informed the police and they went to the spot
and took the accused into custody along with stolen article. A
crime was registered under Sections 41(1)(d) and 102 of
Crl.P.C. Subsequently, it is altered to Sections 379 and 34 IPC.
The petitioners are accused nos. 2 and 4 who were allegedly
present along with the first accused, when the people of the
locality tried to capture him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the incident occurred on 1.5.2008, early in the morning at
about 1.30 a.m. The FIR was registered after two hours, at 3.30
a.m. But, in the FIR, petitioners names are not mentioned and
they are not implicated. According to the learned counsel for the
BA No.3769/08 2
petitioners, they are falsely implicated, since, as the neighbours
of the first accused they went to the police station on getting
information that the first accused is arrested and on seeing that
the first accused was injured, insisted the police to register case
against the persons who inflicted injuries on accused. The
assailants included police officials also, who manhandled the
first accused. This infuriated the police and hence, the
petitioners were subsequently added to the array of the accused.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that as per the statements of the witnesses, who had
caught hold of the first accused, there found four persons at the
scene and three of them ran away. The petitioners are stated to
be those two persons. The petitioners were implicated by their
names by the witnesses of the locality. They could not be
arrested only because they escaped from the scene.
5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the recovery is
effected. It can also be seen that the first accused was handed
over to the police by the people of the locality who caught him
red-handed. The police got the information and reached the
place at 1.30 a.m. in the morning and necessarily some enquiry
BA No.3769/08 3
would have been made at the spot regarding the incident.
Whether an enquiry is made or not it is only natural that the mob
would narrate the entire details of police. In all probabilities, if
petitioners were involved, their names would be mentioned. Or
at least the involvement of more than the first accused would be
stated. But, in the First Information Statement, names of the
petitioners are missing. Nothing is mentioned about the three
persons who allegedly escaped from the scene.
6. The FI statement is recorded only after two hours of
the alleged incident and the first accused must have been
questioned also prior to this but the petitioners names and the
involvement of any person other than the first accused was
mentioned in the FI Statement. Admittedly, the first accused was
injured. In the light of the allegations made against the police,
regarding false implication, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail
has to be granted to the petitioners, failing which, it is likely that
they will be harassed.
Hence, the following order is passed:
The petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court
within seven days from today and they shall be released on bail
BA No.3769/08 4
on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned
Magistrate on condition that the petitioners shall co-operate with
investigation.
The petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl