IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6954 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.608/08 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SUMESH DAS, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.MARY DAS, S.M.COTTAGE, KERALAPURAM, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAMNAD S. AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, SHAMNAD MANZIL, KARALAPURAM, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. MUHAMMED ASLAM, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL AZEES, HASEENA MANZIL, KARALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O. KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6954 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 450, 307 and 149 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3, along with other accused, totally 8 in number, allegedly committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted his son. First accused used a chopper and some others used sticks. De facto complainant's son sustained lacerated wound on the head and incised wound on the hand. The incident occurred on 29.10.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this is an absolutely false case. There was an incident, which occurred on 19.6.2008, in which de facto complainant attacked first accused and he sustained serious injuries and he was in the hospital from 19.6.2008 to 21.6.2008. A crime was also registered as Crime no.674/08 at another police station. To settle the said case, de facto complainant wanted the accused to come to his house. The BA.6954/08 2 examination was to commence on 5.11.2008 and it was decided that unless that case is compromised, accused involved will not be allowed to write the examination. Therefore, the accused went to the house of de facto complainant for a settlement. 4. At that time, de facto complainant wanted them to take juice, but they refused to accept it. Then de facto complainant took a chopper and attacked the accused. De facto complainant's son intervened and warded off the attack and he sustained injury on his hand. Another injury was also sustained on his head. But, it is not correct to say that any one of the accused assaulted de facto complainant's son. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. It is also submitted that allegations do not constitute offence under Section 307 IPC. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals a case in which accused have formed into an unlawful assembly and committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant, armed with weapons like chopper, stick etc. and assaulted de facto complainant's son. He sustained both lacerated injury and incised wound. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA.6954/08 3 6. On hearing both sides, I find that two versions are given in respect of an incident. But at this stage, it is not possible to accept the case set up by accused especially in the absence of any evidence. In a case of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the weapons allegedly used for the offence are to be recovered and petitioners will be required for investigation. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation, without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.