IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2100 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/03/2008 IN CMP 1247/08 IN CMP.1248/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO.134/08 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1,2,3 AND 5 ------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN MOOLANKARA PADINJATTETHIL VEEDU NEAR MOOLANKARA LAKSHAM VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. ANEESH, S/O.VENU, PAVARAZHIKATHU THEKKETHARA, NEAR VARAMBIL HOSPITAL KANNIMELCHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 3. SANTHOSH, S/O.SURESH KAMARIPITCHAKATHU VEEDU NEAR KIZHAKKANAZHAKAM TEMPLE, KANNIMEL CHERRY SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 4. SYAMKUMAR, S/O.SUDARSANA BABU MOOLANKARA PADINJATTETHIL VEEDU NEAR MOOLANKARA LAKSHAM VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2100 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for regular bail. Petitioners are accused 1, 2, 3 and 5. The 3rd accused had come to this Court earlier for regular bail in B.A.No.1811 of 2008 and that application was dismissed as per order dated 24.03.08. In that order there was a direction that the 3rd accused can move this Court again for regular bail at a later stage of the investigation not at any rate prior to 04.04.08. This application is seen filed by him along with accused 1, 2 and 5 on 28.03.08 without in any way revealing the earlier order passed by this Court. 2. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that the application for bail of all the petitioners can now be considered together as the same is coming up for consideration after 4.4.08 though I do not make any secret of my displeasure that the 3rd accused has chosen to come before this Court contrary to the directions earlier issued and without revealing the said directions. 3. These applications are for regular bail. Altogether there are 10 accused persons. The alleged incident took place on B.A.No.2100 of 2008 2 11.03.08. Two persons had suffered injuries - the defacto complainant and his friend. Both of them are teachers of a tutorial college. After visiting the houses of the children to enable them to prepare for the ensuing examination they reached the house of the defacto complainant. They had food there. The defacto complainant had gone out to the place where the motor cycle of his friend was parked to see him off. At that time a group of about 10 miscreants allegedly came, armed with dangerous weapons. It is alleged by the investigator that their motive was to trace and attack one Liju and another against whom the 1st accused had some animus. They could not trace them. At the scene of the crime when the defacto complainant and his fried saw a number of people coming together with curiosity, torch light of the defacto complainant was flashed to ascertain who they were. The miscreants allegedly got infuriated and probably thinking that the defacto complainant and his friend were Liju and his brother whom they were going in search of, they allegedly unleashed a brutal attack on both the defacto complainant and his friend, the injured. Both of them had suffered injuries. One of them has lost vision of one eye. Sword and iron rods are the weapons used. Investigation is in progress. Final report has not been filed yet. B.A.No.2100 of 2008 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who have remained in custody from 12.03.08 may now be enlarged on bail. Even allegedly there was no animosity for anyone of the accused to attack the defacto complainant and his friend. In these circumstances, their continued detention is unnecessary. They may be enlarged on bail, prays the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The allegations reveal great depravity of mind. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the 1st accused has collected the other accused in an attempt to attack the said Liju and his brother. For no provocation at all and without verifying the identity of the persons, they had indulged in a reckless and callous but determined and wilful attack on the defacto complainant and his friend. The brutality of the attack can be seen from the nature of the injuries suffered - one of them having lost vision of his one eye. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accused persons are mercenaries who get involved in such fights with other persons for consideration. In any view of the matter,the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this early stage, submits the learned Public Prosecutor . B.A.No.2100 of 2008 4 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this early stage of investigation. In coming to this conclusion I have taken note of all the relevant inputs including the nature and gravity of the allegations and the stage of the investigation. 7. This application for regular bail is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation - not, at any rate, prior to 21.04.08. The investigator shall in the meantime make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-