IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7923 of 2008 ------ ----------------------------- CRIME NO.653/2008 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/2ND & 3RD ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SHYJU, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.GLASTON, BAIJU BHAVAN, CHERUVATTOORPOTTA, PARASUVAKKAL .P.O., PARASSALA. 2. JOSE, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.TOSSES, CHERUVATTOORPOTTA, VADAKKARUKK PUTHEN VEEDU, PARASUVAKKAL PO. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT/COMLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7923 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2009 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 506(II) and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant received information that some commotion is going on in the I.T.I., Dhanuvachapuram between the students and some others and he rushed to the scene and on returning to his house, he was assaulted by accused Nos.1 to 4 and ten others. Weapons like swords were also used. The defacto complainant was also criminally intimidated by showing a sword and Rs.4300/- was taken from his pocket. He also sustained injuries. The offences were committed by an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that defacto complainant is the area secretary of SFI union and a false complaint is lodged against accused in this case. No incident, as alleged, had occurred. There was some scuffle between petitioners and some people, but no attack was made on petitioners. Though some attack is alleged, he sustained only minor injuries. It is also submitted that allegation of theft is levelled only with a view to harass petitioners by implicating in a non bailable offence. Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is the only non B.A.No.7923 of 2008 2 bailable offence. It is also pointed out that defacto complainant belongs to Thiruvananthapuram and he is a student of the Sanskrit College and he is alleged to have come all the way to Dhanuvachapuram which is quite far away from Thiruvananthapuram and it is unbelievable. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that defacto complainant sustained injuries in the incident and it did not occur inside the premises of any educational institution. It occurred outside the institution.. Accused in this case are autorickshaw drivers who had some dispute with the students of the college and when defacto complainant had gone to enquire about it on getting information he was assaulted, asking whether he had come to rescue SFI people, etc. He also sustained injuries on his elbow and also on his chest. The weapon is to be recovered, as well as the money, which was allegedly stolen. 5. On hearing both sides, and considering the nature of the allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first petitioner is not an accused in this case, but second petitioner is the third accused. Police has no intention to arrest first petitioner. This submission is recorded and hence no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to first petitioner. The incident occurred as early as on 25.10.2008 and petitioners were not available for interrogation or B.A.No.7923 of 2008 3 investigation. They have not surrendered either before the investigating officer or before court. Therefore, investigation is in a standstill. It is not made clear as to why defacto complainant had falsely foisted a case against accused in this case. No previous enmity is alleged and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to second petitioner also. 6. Hence the following order is passed: i) In the light of the undertaking recorded, the prayer for anticipatory bail by first petitioner is rejected. ii) The prayer for anticipatory bail by second petitioner (A3) is also rejected and he is directed to surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed with in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed.. K.HEMA, JUDGE vns