IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 974 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 39/08 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. THATHA, W/O. CHELLAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KOOTTALA COMPANYPADI VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 2. SANTHAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. R.KANNAN, KOOTTALA COMPANYPADI VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 3. DEVU, W/O. CHATHU, AGED 50 YEARS, KOOTTALA COMPANYPADI VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., PAMBADI VILLAGE. 4. VELLACHI, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. BALAN, VAILALA COLONY VEEDU, PAMBADI WEST, PAMBADI VILLAGE. 5. DEVAJANAKI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O. VELAYUDHAN, KOOTTALA COMPANYPADI VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 6. PUZHPALATHA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. JAYAN, VAILALA COLONY VEEDU, PAMBADI P.O., PAMBADI VILLAGE. 7. JANAKI, AGED 57 YEARS, C/O. SASIKUMAR, VAILALA COLONY VEEDU, PAMBADI P.O. PAMBADI VILLAGE. 8. JANAKI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. RAMAN, MUTHIYARKODE VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 9. AMMU, AGED 34 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, CHELAKKATTUKUNNU, PAMBADI P.O., PAMBADI VILLAGE. 10. JANAKI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN, ERUMAKKUZHIPARAMBU, PAMBINKADU, PAMBADI VILLAGE. 11. PRIYA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. CHAMUNDI, MUNDANTHODUKUNNU, PAMBADI VILLAGE, P.O. PAMBADI. 12. KOMALAM, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. RAMAN, VIALALA COLONY, PAMBADI VILLAGE, P.O. PAMBADI. 13. SHAILAJA, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KOOTTALA COMPANYPADI VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 14. KALYANI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. KANNAN, MUTHIYARKODE COLONY VEEDU, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 15. SANTHA, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, KOODARAMKKUNNU COLONY, KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 16. OMANA, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, KOODARAMKUNNU COLONY, KANIYARKKODE P.O., KANIYARKKODE VILLAGE. 17. KUNJA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRAN, KALATHAMPADI MICHABHOOMI, PAMBADI VILLAGE, PAMBADI P.O. 18. LAKSHMI @ SIROMANI, AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. KUNJUMON, MELEPPAT COLONY, PAMBADI VILLAGE, PAMBADI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA SMT.P.R.REENA RESPONDENTS: STAE & COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 984 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.Nos.974 & 984 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 333 and 307 I.P.C. The ranks of the petitioners shown in the petition are not correct, submits the learned Prosecutor. It is further accepted that all the petitioners are accused in the crime. 2. The crux of the allegations is that there was a conflict between CITU and AITUC workers. Police party had come to the scene of the occurrence in discharge of their official duty. The police party was allegedly attacked. Serious injuries, including grievous injuries, were caused to the members of the police party. One of the police officials suffered a fracture also. The alleged incident took place on 28.1.2008. Some of the co- accused, who were arrested, had come to this Court for regular bail and this Court as per order dt. 15.2.2008 in BA. 921 of 2008 had granted them regular bail. Facts have been adverted to in detail in that order. This common order must be read in B.A.Nos.974 & 984 of 2008 2 continuation of that order. I am not hence adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent. There was a dispute between CITU and AITUC workers. The alleged incident took place as a sequel to such a dispute. That dispute has now been settled between the two unions. A lenient view may be taken and the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the allegations in these cases are not essentially regarding disputes between two groups of workmen, but the allegations relate to the unjustified culpable conduct against the police party, which came to the scene of the crime. The settlement of the dispute between the two unions can have no bearing on the acceptability of the allegations raised in this crime. The petitioners may be directed to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail in the usual course, submits the learned Prosecutor. 5. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the B.A.Nos.974 & 984 of 2008 3 allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that, I do not find any features in this case, which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. I need only mention that I have taken note of the allegations and the nature of injuries, including the fracture suffered by the police official. This I am satisfied is a fit case where the petitioners must resort to the ordinary and normal procedure of appearing before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. These applications are accordingly dismissed. Needless to say, if the petitioners appear before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm B.A.Nos.974 & 984 of 2008 4