ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The petitioner herein, who is accused No. 8 in Crime No. 676 of 2009 of Kasargode Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 354, 324, 364(A), 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, has filed this application seeking anticipatory bail, by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. apprehending arrest in the said crime. The allegations raised in the aforementioned crime registered on 30.12.2009 are that on 30.12.2009, at 12.00 Hours, the accused viz. Patel Naufal, Yasin, Risal and 12 others, who were identifiable, had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the rental quarters of the complainant (Gafoor) at Perumbala Road, Nainmarmoola, Kasaba gramam, Kasargode with deadly weapons and they caught hold of the wife of the complainant, thereby outraged her modesty and inflicted injuries to the complainant's brother, Haneefa, by assaulting with deadly weapons and kidnapped Dawood, the younger brother of the complainant, in a Maruti car. That the accused persons carried the said Dawood to different places and inflicted him injuries, which resulted in the death of Dawood, etc. During the course of the investigation, other offences under Sections 323, 120B and 212 of PIC were added. Annexure-A is the FIR in the above said crime and it is averred that the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR and that there is no reference about the petitioner in the first information statement or first information report. Further it is averred that during the inquest held on the next day, viz. 31.12.2009, the detailed statement of the first informant, Gafoor, was recorded and the statements of two other witnesses were also recorded and that there is no reference about the petitioner anywhere in Annexure-C inquest report dated 31.12.2009. According to the petitioner, the non-mentioning of his name in Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-C inquest report assumes importance in this case. The aspects in this regard projected in the application are as follows:-

That the residence of the first informant, Gafoor, the deceased Dawood, (who is the first informant Gafoor's brother) and their parents and their siblings, is just opposite to the house of the petitioner, where he was born and brought up and that only a Panchayat road is between the two and that the petitioner was intimately known to the first informant, Gafoor, deceased Dawood and other members of the family from his childhood and that the members of the two families are very close and friendly and that the petitioner and the deceased Dawood were thick friends until the death of Dawood and that if the petitioner was present anywhere near the scene of occurrence and if the petitioner had any role, then the first informant, Gafoor, who is said to be the person, who has allegedly witnessed the incident in question, could have certainly noted the involvement of the petitioner, who is known to the first informant from child hood days and that the petitioner would have been named by the first informant, Gafoor, in Annexure-A FI statement dated 31.12.2009, or at least in the detailed statement given by the first informant, Gafoor, incorporated in the Annexure-C inquest report. The petitioner was subsequently arrayed as accused No. 8 in the aforementioned crime on the basis of a report of the investigating officer made on 6.1.2010.

2. The gist of allegations in the first information statement is that about one and-a-half month prior to the date of the incident, viz. 30.12.2009, the above said Dawood (brother of the first informant, Gafoor) robbed an amount of Rs. 16.3 lakhs from one Muhammed, which was said to be the proceeds of hawala transaction of one Faizal Patel, who is the brother of accused No. 1 (Patel Naufal) and the said hawala money was entrusted with the said Muhammed for distribution and that the above said money that was robbed by Dawood from Muhammed, was entrusted with