IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7493 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2065/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CRMP.7198 7199/2008 of J.M.F.C.-I,PATHANAMTHITTA CRIME NO.540/2008 OF KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.2,3,5 & 6 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS MAMMEN @ JOMON, S/O.MAMMEN JOHN, VADAKKE MANNIL VEEDU, KUNNAMTHANAM. 2. SURESH @ MANOJ, S/O SUKUMARAN, SURESH BHAVAN, KARUKACHAL. 3. UDAYAN S/O THAMPI, ANCHALASSERIL VEEDU, PADIMON MURI, MALLAPPALLY. 4. SREEKUMAR @ RAMESAN, S/O RAJAPPAN, MALANKOTTAKKAL VEEDU, PADIMON.PO, MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, KEEZHVAIPUR POLICE STATION NOTICE TO WHOM MAY BE SENT ON THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR DE FACTO COMPLAINANT THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7493 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of December,2008 O R D E R Petition for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 308 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, one Kuttappan was on enmical terms with de facto complainant who is an advocate by profession, since he had made a complaint against him in respect of illegal sand mining. Infuriated by this he engaged a goonda gang on hire to assault de facto complainant and the latter was assaulted by accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 by using weapons like iron bar, axe and sword stick . The six accused was sitting in the car. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident occurred on 20-10-2008 and petitioners 1 and 2 were remanded to custody on 26-10-2008. Petitioners 3 and 4 on 22- 10-2008. It is pointed out that there are several discrepancies in the F.I.R. and remand report. As per the First Information Statement, only three persons are involved in the offence but BA 7493 /08 -2- now, several other accused are brought in the array of accused. It is also submitted that only two weapons were allegedly used for the offence as per First Information Statement, but another weapon is now included. Therefore, bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for de facto complainant were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners are accused 2, 3, 5 and 6 and they are hired gundas. They were engaged by the 6th accused who is a close relative of Kuttappan and petitioners were engaged for assaulting de facto complainant on hire. However, he has no objection in granting bail. 5. Learned counsel for de facto complainant opposed this petition and submitted that de facto complainant is an advocate by profession and he is even now in the hospital, after having sustained injuries on 20-10-2008. For the sole reason that a complaint was lodged against one Kuttappan relating to his illegal activities, he was brutally assaulted by petitioners who are hired gundas. In case petitioners are released on bail, it is likely that de facto complainant may be intimidated and offence will be repeated, it is submitted. BA 7493 /08 -3- 6. On hearing both sides, I find that at this stage of investigation, it may not be proper to grant bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.