IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3840 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.235/2008 OF THE BEKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED NOS.3,6 AND 7: --------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KORAN, NEDUVOTTUPARA, PERIYA VILLAGE. 2. ANDI RAGESH, NEDUVOTTUPARA, PERIYA VILLAGE. 3. MANI NARAYANAN, S/O.,MANI AMMA, NEDUVOTTUPARA, PERIYA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEKAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3840 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with section 149 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences and assaulted the defacto-complainant. Iron rod was used for the offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injury sustained by the defacto-complainant is minor and it is unlikely that it is caused by beating with an iron rod. It is also submitted that during the pendency of this application, the 1st petitioner was arrested by the police and released on bail. Recovery was effected through accused 1st and 2 and they were granted bail. Petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation and hence anticipatory bail may be granted. It is further submitted that there is a case and counter case. The case is an off-shoot of a political dispute. The offence under section 308 IPC is added only at the instance of the ruling political party with a view to harass the rival group, it is submitted. In such circumstances, petitioners are apprehending torture by the police. Though the 1st accused sustained serious injuries in the attack BA 3840/08 -2- made by the defacto-complainant and others and the 1st accused was hospitalized, it is submitted that crime was not registered under section 308 IPC. 4. This application is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that two lacerated wounds are there on the scalp and forehead of the defacto-complainant and it is not correct to say that the injuries are minor. It is also submitted that the defacto-complainant cannot be said to be the aggressor. 5. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that accused 1 and 2 are already granted bail. They played the main role in the crime. Hence, there may not be any reason to refuse bail to the co-accused who had lesser role. If the petitioners are apprehending custodial torture by the police, they are at liberty to surrender before the Magistrate Court and seek their remedy before the trial court itself. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. With these observations, the application is disposed of. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.