IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4216 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.476/2010 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM) PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. BINOY RAJ, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.BABURAJ, RESIDING AT NIKATHITARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ANEESH.K.S, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SASI, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE, CHERAI, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NITHIN RAJ.M.R, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, RESIDING AT MATHANDASSERI HOUSE, CHERAI P.O., PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4216 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. According to prosecution, on 11/06/2010, when a marriage party was going on in the house of a neighbour, petitioners and de facto complainant went to attend the party. The accused wanted de facto complainant to withdraw the case filed against them, for which, de facto complainant was not willing. Therefore, accused numbers 1 to 4 assaulted him by using sword, knife etc and inflicted injuries on him, and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no incident, as alleged has taken place. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. There was a marriage in the house of petitioners, and de facto complainant and some other people came to the house, and they asked the accused to withdraw the case filed against de facto complainant. Since they were not willing, they tried to attack accused. People of the locality intervened and there was an assault, but petitioners have not committed anything as alleged. B.A No.4216 OF 2010 2 4. It is also pointed out that second accused who was a minor aged 17 years was arrested, and he was detained in custody for six days. He was released on bail only after producing documents in proof of his age. All these are done, only because of the political influence of de facto complainant. De facto complainant even now threaten petitioners that petitioners will have to face the same fate as that of second accused and hence they apprehend that if bail is not granted, they will suffer harassment from police. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners are accused numbers 1, 3 and 4 and their involvement in the incident is clearly revealed from the case records. They used weapons for commission of the offence and they are required for the purpose of custodial interrogation and recovery of the weapons used. De facto complainant sustained several injuries and all the injuries are incised wounds of considerable nature. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the nature of injury sustained, the need for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons used, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner was not able to substantiate why petitioners are B.A No.4216 OF 2010 3 implicated if they are innocent. If as a matter of fact, the incident happened, why de facto complainant has not implicated the persons who actually committed the offence is also not made clear. Petitioners are bound to surrender to law and co-operate with investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv