IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6826 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1382/08 OF MOOVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER ------------------------------ NAVAS.T.M.,S/O.MOHAMMED, THACHETH, MANARI PO, PAYIPRA, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6826 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323,341, 427 and 308 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 26.10.2008 at about 7 PM, petitioner wrongfully restrained de facto complainant both accused assaulted him. Second accused beat him with an iron rod and inflicted injuries. A crime was registered under the above said Sections on the information given by de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that second accused was assaulted by de facto complainant and he was hospitalised also. He was arrested from the hospital and released on bail. A crime was registered against de facto complainant on the statement given by second accused. There is a case and counter case and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant had sustained an injury near the eye and also on the eye by beating with an iron rod. Petitioner had wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and accused have BA.6826/08 2 acted in further of a common intention and th is not a fit case to grant bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that both sides assaulted each other and persons from both sides sustained some injuries. It is not made clear why petitioner should be exonerated from criminal liability. No circumstances are pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of another crime in respect of the same incident may not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The fact that a co-accused is granted regular bail also cannot be made a reason to grant anticipatory bail to the co-accused. The crime is registered as early as on 27.10.2008 and petitioner was not available for interrogation or investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation or surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.