IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7637 of 2008() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.203/2008 OF THE CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION ......... PETITIOENR (S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 9 -------------------- 1. BENNY ARAKKAL, S/O.JOSEPH, 45 YEARS, ARAKKEKALAYI, PERUMBATTA PO., MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 2. SANOJ, S/O.JOY, POOKKUNNEL HOUSE PERUMBATTA PO., MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 3. SHINOJ, S/O.LUKOSE, POOKKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMBATTA PO., MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 4. JINTO VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE MAYILADUMPARAYIL, PERUMBATTA PO., MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 5. SHAJI, S/O.JOSEPH, ARAKKEKALAYI HOUSE, PERUMBATTA PO, MOUKODE, WEST ELERI 6. JOHNY, S/O.JOSEPH, KURIATHANAM HOUSE, PERUMBATTA PO. MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 7. JOY.P.A., S/O.JOSE, POOKKUNNEL HOUSE PEREUMBATTA PO.,MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. 8. SAJI, S/O.JOY, POOKKUNNEL HOUSE, PERUMBATTA PO., DO.DO. 9. THANKACHAN.V.J., S/O.JOSEPH, VARALLUR HOUSE, PERUMBATTA PO., MOUKODE, WEST ELERI. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW B.A. NO.7637/2008 RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7637 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. According to prosecution, on 2.2.2008 at about 9.45 pm, de facto complainant along with others were assaulted by accused in this case, who formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with dangerous weapons. The injured sustained fractures. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that certain persons were pasting postures, while de facto complainant and others intervened and there was a push and pull and an incident followed and actually, accused in this case were assaulted by them. In connection with the said incident, a crime was registered and though a knife was used, the offence included was only under Section 325 IPC. Therefore, accused BA.7637/08 2 in that case were all granted bail from the police station itself. De facto complainant and others are workers of CPI(M) and accused in this case are Congress workers and therefore, injustice is done to petitioners. 4. It is also submitted that though nine persons have filed petition, accused 2 to 9 appeared before the lower court and they were remanded to custody. First petitioner is the first accused and he is a Postmaster and he has not committed any offence. In the light of the submissions made, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that accused in this case lost three teeth and one of them sustained a stab wound also. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where petitioners along with others have assaulted de facto complainant and others and four persons were injured. One person sustained two fractures and teeth were also lost. Reaper, iron rod and torch were used by the assailants. Offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of BA.7637/08 3 Atrocities) Act is also involved and there is a bar to grant anticipatory bail in such offences. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is true that it may appear that by incorporating only offence under Section 325 IPC in the other case, accused therein were deliberately aided by police. However, that fact alone cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. First petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.