IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7252 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.912/2008 OF KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. SUDHEESH P.K., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY P.R., PARAMBATHU HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPUMPADY. 2. JIBU E.V., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.E.P.VARKEY, EMBASSERIL HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY, MUDAKKARI. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB CHACKO RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7252 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 326 and 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners who are accused nos.1 and 2 went to a bar and picked up a quarrel with one of the employees in the bar and he was assaulted with hands. The bar man intervened, while he was also assaulted. First accused hit on his face and when bar man fell down, he was beaten with a hammer and he sustained a fracture. On basis of the statement given by the said injured, F.I.R. was registered against petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident did not occur, as alleged. Petitioners found one Shaji getting into the bar. He owed some money to petitioners. Therefore they were talking to the said Shaji to settle the issues. In between, bar man intervened and he attacked petitioners and this case is cooked up, it is submitted. The petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. B.A.7252 of 2008 2 It is also submitted that against second accused, there is only an allegation that he asked other other accused “to kill”. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident occurred inside a bar and the bar man was assaulted by petitioners and hammer was used by first accused and a fracture was caused to the nasal bone and the defacto complainant was hospitalised. On the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The recovery of the weapon is to be effected and hence petitioners are required for interrogation, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The weapon of the offence is to be recovered by interrogation of the petitioners. Though there is an assertion of innocence, there is absolutely nothing to support such assertions. Bare assertions of innocence is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 04.11.2008 and petitioners are required for the purpose of B.A.7252 of 2008 3 investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, arrest would proceed in accordance with law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac