High Court Kerala High Court

Shyam Sundar vs State Of Kerala on 17 May, 2010

Kerala High Court
Shyam Sundar vs State Of Kerala on 17 May, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 2352 of 2010()


1. SHYAM SUNDAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



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

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/05/2010

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
              ----------------------------------------------
              Bail Application No.2352 of 2010
              ----------------------------------------------
                     Dated 17th May, 2010.

                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with

two others criminally trespassed into the office of Asianet Satellite

Communications Limited and manhandled two of the employees

therein and also caused mischief by damaging the computer, fan,

telephone etc. and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. A

complaint was lodged on the very next day, by the Area Manager

of the company.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

though two persons are allegedly assaulted, they have not made

any complaint to the police. It is the Area Manager, who has filed

the complaint. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not

committed any offence. He is a carpenter working close to the

alleged place of occurrence.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioner’s name is mentioned in the F.I.

statement itself, which is lodged on the very next day of the

BA NO.2352/10 2

incident. There are two identifiable persons and they could not

be arrested so far. Petitioner’s arrest and interrogation are

required for the purpose of investigation and identifying the two

persons involved in the crime.

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

submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. The bare

denial of the incident and the involvement of the petitioner are

not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as

early as on 22.2.2010 and the petitioner is bound to cooperate

with the investigation.

6. Hence, the following order is passed :

Petitioner shall surrender before the

Investigating Officer within one week from

today and shall cooperate with the

investigation.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

BA NO.2352/10 3

tgs