IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5979 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 340/2008 OF ERUMAPPETTY POLICE STATION) APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SALIM, S/O.KUNJAMU, PUZHAKKARA ILLATH HOUSE, PENGATTUPARA DESOM, VELLARAKKADU VILLAGE. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O.HAMZA, MALIEKKAL HOUSE, CHIRAMANGANAD DESOM, CHIRAMANGANAD VILLAGE. 3. SHIHAB, S/O.MUHAMMAD, KARAPPAN HOUSE, PENGATTUPARA DESOM. 4. HASSANKUTTY, S/O.KUNJAMU, PUZHAKKARA ILLATH HOUSE, PENGATTUPARA DESOM, VELLARAKKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF ERUMAPETTY, POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 5979 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 308 read with section 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, A1 to A4 along with 15 others formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted de facto complainant, who is a Panchayat President, by using a sword. A1 aimed a cut at de facto complainant, which was warded off by him. Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 4 in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd accused is a U.D.F. Worker. There was some altercation between himself and de facto complainant, who is a Panchayat President and a C.P.I.(M) leader. The de facto complainant and a few others attacked 2nd accused by using weapons like sword, stick etc. A2 sustained a fracture to the left hand in the incident and a crime was registered against the de facto complainant as crime no.341 of 2008 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 308 [B.A.No.5979/08] 2 read with section 149 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners pointed out that though a fracture was caused to 2nd accused, police has not included offence under Section 326 IPC. Though the de facto complainant, who is a leader of CPI(M), did not sustain any injury, offence under Section 308 IPC was included and this was with a view to harass petitioners, it is submitted. It was also submitted that de facto complainant and others were granted anticipatory bail by learned Sessions Judge in Crime No. 341 of 2008. In such circumstances, petitioners may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Admittedly, the weapon, which was allegedly aimed at de facto complainant, was left at the scene of occurrence itself and petitioners may be not required for recovery of weapon. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any justification in refusing anticipatory bail to petitioners, especially since the de facto complainant and others were granted anticipatory bail in Crime no. 341 of 2008, in which 2nd petitioner (A2) sustained a fracture. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The petitioners shall surrender before the [B.A.No.5979/08] 3 Magistrate court concerned and they shall be released on bail 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 the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.