IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2903 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.363/10 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. .................... (S): PETITIONCE/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SIYAD A., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK VEGETABLE MERCHANT, PULATHARAYIL , VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.E.RAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2903 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 5th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 354 and 324 read with Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused nos.1 to 6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, committed house trespass into the house of defacto complainant and assaulted defacto complainant, defacto complainant's sister and sister's daughter by using iron rods and sticks and thereby committed the various offences. The incident happened on 17.4.2010 at about 4 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a counter case also and parties have settled the matter. It is also submitted that the girl allegedly involved in this case is taken by one Muneer to defacto complainant's house. The said girl is married. There is a habeas corpus petition also in respect of that incident. The allegation was that on the same day, Muneer's henchmen attacked petitioner and others and a crime was registered at Vallikkunnu police station against petitioner's wife BA NO. 2903/10 2 and mother. In the above circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no information about any settlement. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The weapons allegedly used in the case are not recovered. Petitioner is the first accused. He had used an iron rod. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. He is required for interrogation and recovery of the weapons allegedly used by him in the offence. Though learned counsel for petitioner stated some facts, nothing is made out from them to persuade me to grant anticipatory bail. Though a petition is filed as early as on 7.5.2010 (Crl.M.A.2648/10), seeking two months' time to produce certified copy of order in Crl.M.P.No.1193/10 dated 6.5.2010 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha, the said document is not yet filed. Petitioner may take up all his contentions before the court concerned when he moves the application for bail. There is absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the BA NO. 2903/10 3 following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs