IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7624 of 2008 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.1240/2008 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- KANNAN @ NITHIN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, IKKARATHODIYIL, GANDHI NAGAR - 46, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7624 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 294(B), 324, 326, 308, 427 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the allegations the third and fourth accused had beaten the de facto complainant's brother with iron rod and stick and he had sustained fracture to the leg and also to the lower jaw. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first accused is granted anticipatory bail by this Court and hence the same benefit may be extended to this petitioner also. It is also submitted that the petitioner who is accused No.4 is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. As per the allegations in the first information statement, it is not mentioned that the fracture is caused by any overtact committed by the petitioner. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. 4. This petition is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner who is the 4th accused. He had allegedly used iron rod and stick to attack the de facto complainant's brother. The de facto complainant's brother had sustained fracture also. The first accused stands on a different footing. The case of the first accused was considered by this Court in the order in B.A.No.7624 of 2008 2 B.A.No.7679 of 2008 and it was based on the allegations made and as revealed from the wound certificate issued in respect of the first accused that anticipatory bail was granted to him since he had gone to the place for interfering in the attack made by the de facto complainant against the accused in this case as per the wound certificate. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the specific overtact alleged against him and also the fact that he was using weapons which have to be recovered, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The facts relating to the involvement of the first accused are different and the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner or any other accused person in this case. The incident occurred as early as on 2.11.2008 and the petitioner has not surrendered so far. 6. Hence the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed with in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vns