IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 226 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 218/07 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION PETITIONER : 3RD, 4TH & 5TH ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, CHARUNINNA VEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O. 2. MANIKANDAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDAN, CHARUNINNA VEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O. 3. BINU, S/O.MANIYAN, MADATHUVULAKAM, PUTHENVEEDU, PUTHENKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOVAR POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 226 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in a crime registered, inter alia, under Section 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The allegation under Section 326 I.P.C. has also been included subsequently after questioning the doctor at the hospital, where the injured was being treated. On account of prior animosity, at 8.30 p.m. on 10.12.2007 the accused persons had allegedly assaulted the sister of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant intervened and he was attacked with dangerous weapons. Accused 1 and 2 indulged in the specific overt act. Accused 3, 4 and 5 allegedly restrained him and facilitated infliction of injuries by accused 1 and 2. The defacto complainant suffered a fracture of the skull bone. Dangerous weapons were allegedly used for infliction of the injuries. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. B.A.No. 226 of 2008 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have not indulged in any overt act. There is no grievance that they have wielded any weapon. They had, even going by the allegations, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and facilitated infliction of injuries by accused 1 and 2. There was an earlier incident on 9.11.2007, which operated as the motive. Subsequently also crimes have been registered, wherein the accused persons are the victims and the party of the defacto complainant are the accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel. 3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the victim has suffered very serious injuries. The allegations are raised with the help of Section 149 I.P.C. It is not necessary at this stage to search for specific overt acts of all the accused persons. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Their role in facilitating commission of the offence by the co-accused is stated in the F.I. B.A.No. 226 of 2008 3 statement. In these circumstances the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor. 4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am in agreement with the learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must surrender before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm