IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6705 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.364/2008 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. GOVINDAN, THALICHALAM, P.O. ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. 2. SREEJITH.K.V, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. P. DAMODARAN, KAIVALIKKAL, THALICHALAM, P.O. ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. 3. VINOD.T.V, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. O. KARUNAKARAN, THAIVALAPPIL, THALICHALAM, P.O. ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. 4. JAYESH.T.V, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. CHEREIAKKAN, THAIVALAPPIL, THALICHALAM, P.O. ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. 5. DIGEESH.P, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.K.P.V. DAMODHARAN, PATTAKKARAN, THALICHALAM, P.O. ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 6705 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 308 read with section 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A5) along with 14 other identifiable persons assaulted de facto complainant after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences. Iron rod and sticks were used for committing the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have no criminal antecedents and they are leading a peaceful life. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners' involvement in the offence is clearly revealed from the case diary. They are named in the F.I.R. also. The crime is registered as early as on 8.10.2008 and petitioners are required for recovery of weapons allegedly used for committing the offence. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and nature of investigation required, particularly the recovery of weapons, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required [B.A.No.6705/08] 2 for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.