IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7346 of 2008() ------------------------------------ IN CRIME NO.441/2008 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSD - A1,2,3,4,6,9,10,11 &12: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH, S/O.GOPALAN, SUMA SADANAM, MARAVANCODE COLONY, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 2. LAL, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, MOTTAVILA VEEDU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 3. SAJEEV, S/O.SURENDRAN, SAJEEV VILASOM, MARAVANCODE COLONY, VELIYAM VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 4. RAJESH, S/O.SELVARAJAN RAJESH BHAVANAM, MARAVANCODE COLONY VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKAA, KOLLAM. 5. SUGATHAN, S/O.GOPALAN SUMA SADANAM, MARAVANCODE COLONY, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 6. SAJIMON, S/O.RAJAN, SAJI BHAVANAM, MARAVANCODE COLONY, VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 7. SABU, S/O.BABU, SABU BHAVANAM, MARAVANCODE COLONY VELIYAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. 8. UNNI, S/O.BABU, SABU BHAVANAM, DO.DO. 9. FAIZAL, S/O.HANEEFA, FAIZAL MANZIL, MARAVANCODE COLONY, DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR B.Appl..No. 7346/2008 RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7346 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 341, 324, 326, 427 read with 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10 (ninth petitioner is not an accused). They along with several others (total 49 persons) formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons like stick, stone, soda bottle etc. and assaulted defacto complainant, his mother and various others when they came to meet one of the ailing relatives, who was in the colony. Defacto complainant's mother sustained a fracture to the arm. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant's grandfather is residing in the same colony, where petitioners are residing. The grandfather was engaged in illicit ganja business. Defacto complainant was under the impression that the petitioners had informed about the ganja business to the police and hence defacto complainant and various others came to the colony when the B.A.7346 of 2008 2 Onam celebrations were going on and assaulted petitioners and others. First accused and some other persons sustained injuries in the incident. This was reported in the Malayalam daily, which is produced and marked as Annexure B. 4. It is also submitted that a counter case was registered on the basis of a statement given and the F.I.R., is Annexure C, registered for offences under Sections 143, 147, 324, 323 read with 149 of I.P.C. This is a case where the defacto complainant and others had come to the colony and assaulted the persons in the colony and hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that in the counter case, one woman also sustained injuries. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 5 persons are injured in the incident, which include women also. The defacto complainant and others including some women had come in a vehicle to the colony to meet an ailing relative, who is in the colony. At that time, petitioners attacked them using weapons and they sustained injuries, which include a fracture also. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, it only appears from the B.A.7346 of 2008 3 submissions made that both sides have sustained injuries and they have fought against each other. Mere existence of a counter may not be sufficient to extent any benefit to the accused in this case and it may not be a ground also for granting anticipatory bail. If the petitioner has a case of self defence, it may be established during the trial, but at this stage, it is difficult to make a conclusion in favour of the petitioners that the petitioners were acting in exercise of right of self defence. Petitioners are required for recovery of weapons and interrogation by police. The crime was registered as early as on 13.09.2008 and petitioners are not available for interrogation. Hence, petitioners 1 to 8 (accused nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 10) are directed to surrender before Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender, or not, arrest would proceed. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac