IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6243 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 324/2007 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- DHANESH, S/O. JAYAN, AGED 21 YEARS, KARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHENPADAM DESOM, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6243 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 148, 341, 324 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution there was some quarrel between employees of two buses relating to time schedule of the buses and consequent to this, de facto complainant and another person were hospitalized. Thereafter, accused herein formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to hospital and de facto complainant and his friend were again attacked from the hospital. Knife and iron rod were used by accused 1 and 2. petitioner (A6) wrongfully restrained de facto complainant whereupon, others assaulted him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. In the First Information Statement only accused 1 and 2 were specifically implicated for having assaulted de facto complainant using weapons. It is only stated therein that other accused who are identifiable by sight came running to the spot. But, there is no allegation that petitioner had wrongfully restrained. Name of petitioner is no where in the First Information Statement and no BA6243 /08 -2- overt act is also attributed to him. In such circumstances, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the attack was made from a hospital, in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly, of which, petitioner is a member. Petitioner is a hired gunda. He had participated in the incident as a member of unlawful assembly along with other hired gundas. It is true that de facto complainant could not implicate petitioner with reference to his name because he was not known to him previously. It is also true that de facto complainant did not mention in the First Information Statement that he was wrongfully restrained by petitioner. But it is mentioned that all the accused came running and First Information Statement cannot be encyclopedia of all events. In the subsequent statement it is clearly mentioned that petitioner wrongfully restrained de facto complainant. Petitioner is required for identification, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, particularly, since petitioner is required for identification by BA6243 /08 -3- witnesses. Crime was registered as early as on 21-5-2007 and more than five months have elapsed and petitioner could not be arrested so far. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.