IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 2ND MAY 2008 / 12TH VAISAKHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2707 of 2008 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 1392/2007 OF ANGAMALY POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 6, 5 & 7 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJI, S/O.VARGHESE,KAREDATHU HOUSE, KOOTTALA AMBALAM BHAGHAM, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. 2. BENNY , S/O.VARGHESE, KAREDATHU HOUSE, KOOTTALA AMABALAM BHAGHAM, MOOKKANNOR VILLAGE ALUVE TALUK. 3. NIBUN JOY,S/O.JOY KAREDATHU, KAREDATHU HOUSE, KOTTALA AMABALAM BHAGHAM, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U.NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.2707 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioners are accused 6, 5 and 7 respectively. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 326 r/w 149 I.P.C. I have adverted to facts in detail while considering an earlier application for anticipatory bail by the 1st accused. That petition was dismissed as per order dated 04.02.08 in B.A.No.600 of 2008. Facts have been referred to in detail in the said order. This order must be read in continuation of the said order. I am hence not adverting to facts in any greater detail in this order. 2. For the same reasons mentioned in the said order, I am satisfied that the petitioners herein are also not entitled for anticipatory bail. The mere fact that the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R and only the 1st accused is named in the F.I.R is not according to me a sufficient reason to take a different view so far as the claim of the petitioners for anticipatory bail is concerned. B.A.No.2707 of 2008 2 3. This application is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but I may hasten to observe that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- /true copy/ P.A to Judge