IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7786 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2136/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... (CRIME NO.594/08 OF THE KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. JOSE,S/O. JOHN, KARIMPOLIL HOUSE, ANNICKADU MURI, ANNICADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. JOYEN, S/O. JOHN, KARIMPOLIL HOUSE, ANNICKADU MURI, ANNICADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. SAJITH, @ AMMINI, S/O. GEORGE, NAMBOORACKAL HOUSE, ANNICKADU MURI, ANNICKADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. GEORGE, NAMBOORACKAL HOUSE, ANNICKADU MURI , ANNICADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEEZHAVAIPUR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No.7786 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 323, 452, 324, 427 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, having committed preparation for commission of offence all the accused went to de facto complainant's house, kicked on the door, asking to open the door and when the door was opened by de facto complainant's son, 1st accused assaulted him. Thereafter, accused went inside the house and beat de facto complainant's son with an iron rod. When de facto complainant's another son intervened, he was also assaulted. On hearing the cries, de facto complainant's brother-in-law's son and also his friend came running and tried to prevent the attack, but they were also attacked. They also destroyed the chairs and broke the front door, causing damages to the tune of Rs.3,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident did not occur, as alleged. While 3rd accused was returning after his work and proceeding to his house, de facto complainant's son and his friends waited for him and he was BA 7786/08 -2- assaulted. He sustained injuries and he gave a statement and on the basis of the statement, F.I.R. was registered. It is only as a counter blast to the said complaint that this crime was registered. No incident as alleged has taken place, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a house trespass, as alleged by prosecution and even de facto complainant who is a woman was assaulted at her house and she sustained injuries. Weapon has to be recovered and petitioners' interrogation is necessary. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I do not find that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. As many as five persons including de facto complainant sustained injury in the assault and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. 6. The incident occurred on 20-11-2008 and petitioners could not be arrested so far. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they BA 7786/08 -3- surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.