IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5806 of 2008(L) ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 275/2008 OF CHAVARA-THEKKUMBHAGAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------- 1. LATHIF, AGED 49 YEARS, MARYATYH KIZHAKKETHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHIBU, AGED 26 YEARS, MARYATYH KIZHAKKETHIL, NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ISMAILKUTTY, NEDUVILAKIZHAKKATHIL, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. P.P. SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5806 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of October,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 427, 452 read with section 149 IPC. A crime was registered on the basis of First Information Statement given by defacto- complainant alleging that three named persons and four identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house and assaulted defacto-complainant with sword stick and he sustained a fracture. He was in his sister's house. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are now implicated as accused in the crime. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Nothing is mentioned in the F.I.R. implicating petitioners in the offence. There were only three persons who assaulted defacto- complainant as per the First Information Statement, but petitioners are now dragged into the crime, without any basis. Therefore, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 4 and 5 in the crime were arrested by the police, and on questioning them it was revealed that petitioners 1 and 2 (they are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7) had also BA 5806 /08 -2- trespassed into the house situated adjacent to the house from where the defacto-complainant was attacked and they had also broken window glasses and caused damage to the house. This fact is evident from the First Information Statement itself, though names of such accused are not mentioned. 5. It is revealed from investigation that accused 6 and 7 are also involved in the offence and weapons used for the offence are to be recovered. However, it is pointed out that 3rd Petitioner is not an accused in the crime and he is not wanted by the police for arrest. This submission is recorded and hence no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to 3rd petitioner. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that as per the materials available in the case diary, petitioners 1 and 2 are involved in the offence and they are accused 6 and 7. Considering the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that petitioners will be required for arrest and interrogation. Recovery is also to be effected and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail by the 3rd petitioner is rejected, in the light of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. BA 5806 /08 -3- mn.