IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7628 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.497/2008 OF CHOKLI POLICE STATION, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED ------------------------ SAYANATH LAL E.P., S/O. NANU, AGED 19 YEARS, ELLIYULLA PARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O.POILOOR, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (SHO CHOKLI POLICE STATION) REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, ALONG WITH BA NO. 7692 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------ B.A. Nos.7628 & 7692 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 332, 201, 294(b), 307 read with 149 of IPC, Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act and Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. According to prosecution, on 04.09.2008, accused formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the Dy.S.P. and other police officials. They also pelted stones at the police jeep and the officials and jeep was damaged and the officials were seriously injured. Country bombs were also thrown at them. Altogether there are 50 persons and petitioners are accused nos. 6 and 10. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The names of petitioners were not mentioned in the F.I. Statement or the F.I.R. and they are brought into the array of accused, without any basis. Some names of persons are supplied by the political group and those are simply B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008 2 incorporated in the reports and petitioners apprehend arrest. Petitioners are youngsters. Tenth accused is a student and if he is to be detained in prison, it will adversely affect his future. Petitioners are B.J.P. activists and they have not committed any offence. It is also submitted that some of the co-accused are granted bail by the Sessions Court. 4. Learned counsel for tenth accused submitted that as per the document produced, petitioner was regularly attending the institute. It is unlikely that petitioner would have been present in the premises at the time of occurrence. Learned counsel for sixth accused submitted that if an identification parade is conducted, petitioner cannot be identified, since he has not involved in the crime. On the basis of this allegation, if these 2 persons are detained in prison it will result in great injustice and irreparable injury, it is submitted. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made are serious in nature. The attack is made on the police party which included even high ranking officer like Dy.S.P. The police jeep was destroyed almost completely. Petitioners involvement is B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008 3 revealed by the statement of the witnesses, who have witnessed the scene and only because there is omission in the F.I. Statement to mention the name it may not be said that petitioners are not involved. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the allegations made against against petitioners are serious in nature. It may not be proper in a case of this nature to grant anticipatory bail, unless some strong circumstances are pointed out to show that petitioners are actually not involved. A bare assertion that they are implicated due to political intervention by itself may not be a ground to come to a conclusion in favour of petitioners at this early stage of investigation. The court can act only on the basis of the materials in the case diary at this stage and no such circumstances is pointed out to grant anticipatory bail. i) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or the Investigating Officer and bound to co-operate with the investigation. ii) If petitioners surrender before the Magistrate court and file application for bail, all the B.A.Nos.7628 & 7692 of 2008 4 contentions raised before this court can be raised before that court also and learned Magistrate shall look into those contentions and dispose of the same on merit. iii) It is made clear that rejection of anticipatory bail cannot be by itself be a ground to reject the application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Consideration for granting or rejection of anticipatory bail are different from those to be considered under Section 437 Cr.P.C. The bail application if any filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. shall be disposed of, untrammelled by any of the observations made in this order. with these observations, these petitions are disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac