IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6569 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.572/08 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 TO 12 ---------------------------------------------- 1. ERATHMITHAL ABDULLA, S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJI KUMMANKODE, POST NADAPURAM, VATTAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 2. PALOLLATHIL ANTHRU, S/O. MOIDU, ELAYADAM POST KADAMERI,VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT 3. KORANKANDI RAFEEQUE, S/O.KUNHABHULLA, KUMMANKODE, POST NADAPURAM, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 4. KUMMANKOTTU KANDI RAFI, S/O.AMMAD HAJI, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 5. KALICHERY MOHAMMED, S/O. MOIDU, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, VALICUT DISTRICT 6. KORANKANDI SIDDIQUE, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, KUMMANKODE, POST NADAPURAM, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 7. MANNOLI ASHREF,S/O.AMMAD, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 8. KEEZHPAD MUHAMMED MASTER, S/O. ANTHRU, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, VALICUT DISTRICT. 9. VATTAKKANDI RAHEEM, S/O. AMMAD, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT 10. CHANAPPARAMBATH RAHEES, S/O.AMMAD, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. 11. KALICHERY ABDULLA, S/O.MOIDU, ELAYADAM, POST KADAMERI, VIA VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA, CALICUT DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRIC.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6569 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 308 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant and his brother were coming out of a Mosque, after prayer, while accused nos. 1 to 9 formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted them using sworn and iron pipe and committed the various offences. They sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a counter case. According to him, a case was registered as Crime no.571/08, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the fourth accused under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code against de facto complainant and others. As per the allegations in the said crime (Crime No.571/2008), they had trespassed into the house of fourth accused and committed the offences. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioner, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the name of petitioners 8, 9 and 10 were deleted BA.6569/08 2 from the array of accused. Originally there were 12 accused in the crime, but now there are only 9 accused. Petitioners 1 to 7 and 11 are accused 2 to 9. Sword and iron pipes were used for the offence and those have to be recovered. Several other crimes are registered against petitioners. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that in the nature of the allegations made and in the nature of the investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though learned counsel for petitioner stated certain facts regarding registration of Crime no.571/2008, it is not made clear by him, how such registration of a crime and the allegations made therein can be made a ground for granting anticipatory bail. It is needless to say that mere existence or a registration of another crime against de facto complainant etc. cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. 6. The crime was registered as early as on 13.10.2008 and petitioners have not surrendered before the court or before the police and they are not available for investigation. The investigation is therefore in a stand still. BA.6569/08 3 Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether petitioners surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioners and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.