IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3506 of 2010() ----------------------------- Crime No.718/2010 of Kundara Police Station PETITIONERS /ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. SOJAN, S/O.MARK, AGED 25 YEARS, SUVISESH BHAVAN, PADAPPAKKARA, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SAJIKUMAR @ VALLAM SAJI, S/O.PATHROSE, AGED 24 YEARS, PONNANICKAL HOUSE, PADAPPAKKARA, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. SAJO, S/O.ALEXANDER, AGED 22 YEARS, LIJI NIVAS, PADAPPAKKARA, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. SAJI @ CHATTY SAJI, S/O.VINCENT, AGED 24 YEARS, KULANJI POIKA, PADAPPAKKARA, PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANAN VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 5. RAJEEV, S/O.NEPPOLIAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KAYALVARATH THODIYIL, PADAPPAKKARA, PERAYAM CHERRY MULAVANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3506 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323,308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A1 to A5) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked de facto complainant and his nephew Lijin on 29.04.2010 at about 10. 30 P.M. using deadly weapons like iron rod and sticks and inflicted injuries and committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are actually injured. The wound certificate relating two of the petitioners are produced. Those will show that they are injured in the incident. Actually, petitioners were assaulted by de facto complainant and another. When they were dancing in the premises of Church, it was objected to by the people of the locality. The people of the locality assaulted de facto complainant and another. B.A. No. 3506 of 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained a fracture. Accused allegedly used iron rod and sticks for commission of the offence and various injuries were sustained by de facto complainant and his nephew. The weapons used for the offences are to be recovered and petitioners have to be interrogated. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the need for interrogation and recovery of the weapons allegedly used for the offence, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. The mere fact that petitioners are also injured by itself will not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. From the submissions made, it only appears that both sides assaulted each other and inflicted injuries against each other and it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail in such a case.. No exceptional circumstances are pointed to invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln