IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3384 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.1078/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... (CRIME NO.296/2010 OF CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. VINESH @ JOSE, AGED 28, S/O.JOSEPH, KUNNATHU KIZHAKKATHIL, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOYIVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. ARUN, AGED 21, S/O.ANTONY, THUPPUSSERI PADINJATTATHIL, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOYIVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. JOY, AGED 21, S/O.JOHN, KUNNATHU VADAKKATHIL, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOYIVILA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. VINOD, AGED 20, S/O.GEORGE, BINU BHAVANAM, THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE, KOYIVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 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 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3384 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 294(b), 324, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, on 18/04/2010, petitioners (A1 to A4), in furtherance of their common intension, assaulted de facto complainant using sword etc. and inflicted injuries on him. They also abused de facto complainant in filthy language in public. Mobile phone was also damaged. There is also an allegation that Rs.7,500/- was taken. There was an earlier incident in which the autorikshaw in which petitioners were travelling blocked a private bus and there was a quarrel between the parties. It is out of the enmity that the petitioners assaulted de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that allegations constituting offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act are not there in the FIR. It is subsequently included. No weapon was used for the offence. Injuries sustained are minor. Injury was sustained when the helper in the bus tried to attack first accused with a ticket rack and when he evaded, the hit fell on de facto complainant's head. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the FIS itself, there is an allegation that a sword was used and it was kept behind the shirt in a hidden state. Injuries B.A No.3384 OF 2010 2 were sustained by two persons in this case and it is not correct to say that nobody sustained serious injuries. There was an injury on the scalp of the injured and an allegation was made to the doctor on the same day of the incident when the injured were hospitalised that an attack was made witha sword stick. Weapon is not so far recovered. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the case diary, particularly the wound certificate etc. and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also seen from the documents that a weapon which fall under Section 27 of the Arms Act was allegedly used and it is not recovered so far. Interrogation would be required for recovery of the said weapon. Petitioners could not substantiate their innocence, but, there are only bare assertions of innocence. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv