IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3472 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.673/2010 OF KOCHI CUSBA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER (S): -------------------- 1. LIVIN, S/O.WILSON, AGED 18 YEARS, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE,PAMBAYIMOOLA, EDAKOCHI. 2. SHILIN, S/O.JOB, AGED 23 YEARS, THOTTUKADAVIL HOUSE,PAMBAYIMOOLA, EDAKOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.GEORGE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANNAMALY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3472 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A1 and A2) along with other accused, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant and another by using iron rod and inflicted injuries on them and thereby committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made by prosecution are not correct. The incident did not occur, as alleged by prosecution. Even according to prosecution, on 23.4.2010, petitioners were proceeding in a religious procession (Garudan Thookkam) and when they reached near the place of occurrence, the defacto complainant and others, who had enmity towards petitioners, attacked them and they sustained injuries. Crime No.770/10 was registered against defacto complainant and others, under Sections 341, 323, 324 BA NO. 3472/10 2 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is highly unlikely that petitioners would carry weapons, when they were going in a religious procession, it is submitted. Petitioners did not use any weapon at all, but such allegations are made only with a view to harass petitioners. The first petitioner is an 18 year old boy and second petitioner is aged only 23 years. They are not involved in any other crime and they have no criminal antecedence. In the above circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners along with other accused had filed anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court and on considering the nature of allegations made against petitioners, their prayer was rejected. The other accused were granted anticipatory bail. Two persons are injured in the incident. The weapons used for the offences are iron rod and punching block, which are yet to be recovered. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. 6. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the injury sustained by BA NO. 3472/10 3 defacto complainant and another, the site of injury, the nature of weapon used, the need for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere registration of a private complaint at the instance of the accused in this case may not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co- operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs