IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7730 of 2008 -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 739/2008 OF THE VARKALA POLICE STATION) ...... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ARUN, S/O.RUSILI, THERUVIL VEEDU, EDAVA, VARKALA. 2. ANZAR, S/O.MOHAMMED SHEREEF, THERUVIL VEEDU, EDAVA, VARKALA. 3. ASSIN, S/O MOHAMMED SHEREEF, THERUVIL VEEDU, EDAVA, VARKALA. 4. JAKKY, S/O.RUSILI, THERUVIL VEEDU, EDAVA, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7730 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 324, 341, 427 & 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution, while de facto complainant and others were proceeding in a car, accused 1 to 7 intercepted the car and assaulted de facto complainant using sword stick, stick, iron rod etc. He sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the case is falsely foisted against petitioners. No incident as alleged had taken place, but de facto complainant was in a drunken stage and the car was stopped and he was warned. Except this, nothing more is happened, but a false complaint is lodged. It is submitted that as per the First Information Statement, the incident is occurred due to previous enmity, but there is no evidence to support such allegation. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that no incident occurred at all. De facto complainant had a lacerated wound on the scalp and abrasions. As per the history, patient was unconscious and vomiting. It is submitted that iron rod and sword sticks are used and petitioners are required for interrogation and BA.7730/08 2 recovery of weapon. If anticipatory bail is granted, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and also the wound certificate relating to de facto complainant, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for investigation and recovery of weapon. The incident happened as early as on 7.12.2008. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.