IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3684 of 2010() ----------------------------- MC.570/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... (CRIME NO.276/2010 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. ASEEB, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MAMMED, MANCHAYIL HOUSE, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. HANEEFA, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM KUTTY, KIZHAKKE PUTHANPURAYIL, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. ABDULLAH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ALI, THARAMMAL HOUSE, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. MUHSIN, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MAJEED, THALKANDI HOUSE, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. RASHID, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MOIDU, MALAMMAL HOUSE, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. NAZAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, MUTHACHANKANDI, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. JAISAL, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.SIDDIQUE, MUTHACHANKANDI, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. JASEER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.ASSAINAR, CRESENT, KATALOOR, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3684 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326 r/w 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 01/04/2010 at about 1 A.M, while de facto complainant and his friend were returning from a temple after attending a ganamela, accused No. 1 to 8 formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked de facto complainant by pelting stones etc. and caused injuries to de facto complainant and his friend and thereby committed the above offences. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioners, two days prior to the incident alleged in this case, BJP workers had pelted stones at the Muslim League office and caused damage to the office and a complaint was also filed. Hence, de facto complainant was under the impression that Muslim League workers had attacked him and hence a false complaint is filed against petitioners who are Muslim League workers. Petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that names of all the petitioners except second petitioner are mentioned in the FIS itself. Second petitioner is not B.A No.3684 OF 2010 2 an accused in this case. De facto complainant sustained loosening of tooth in the incident. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and injury caused, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Second petitioner is not an accused in this case and the question of granting anticipatory bail to him. does not arise. I also find that other petitioners are not able to probabalise their innocence or to make out any ground for getting anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv