IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6078 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2101/2008 IN CRIME NO.391/2008 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS /ACCUSED 1,2 & 4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. UNNI S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, ALUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. BINU, S/O. VIJAYAN -DO- -DO- 3. BIJU, S/O. VIJAYAN -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6078 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 308 and 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused nos.1, 2 and 4, along with another accused in furtherance of common intention, allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and he sustained injuries on the head etc. A1 used iron rod. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The defacto complainant was involved in some other issues and he had gone to the police station on 7.8.2008 and gave a statement, though the incident happened on the previous night. The injuries are minor. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the accused has sustained a lacerated injury on the head and the first accused has used an iron rod. Their interrogation is required and the weapon is not yet seized. Though the incident occurred more than 2½ months back, the petitioners could not be arrested so far. It is further pointed out BA No.6078/08 2 that the petitioner was hospitalised and got discharged from the hospital and gave a complaint to the police from the police station on the next day of the incident. In the nature of allegations made, it may not br proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that on consideration of the nature of allegations and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Weapon is to be recovered and it can done only by interrogation of the accused. (i) Hence, petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) For the purpose of bail, offence involved can be treated by the police or the court as one under Section 324 IPC, instead of Section 308 IPC. With this observation and direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl