IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3486 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.99/2008 OF BADIADUKA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ---------------------------------- 1. KHALID.B, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.ABOOBAKER, BALIGA HOUSE, BADOOR VILLAGE DHARMATHADUKA (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT 2. HUSSAIN.M, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, PANJALAM HOUSE ANGADIMOYAL (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT 3. MAHMOOD.G, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, GULINGIRI HOUSE PERMUDE (P.O), KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO.99 OF 2008 OF BADIADUKA POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.3486 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. 2. The prosecution case is that on 21.4.2008 at about 5 .30 p.m., the de facto complainant was wrongfully restrained and beaten up with hand and stick causing fracture on his left hand. A crime was registered under Sections 341, 323, 326, 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the de facto complainant is a member of abkari lobby in the locality against whom 3rd accused's son and petitioners 1 and 2 arranged protest. The de facto complainant therefore kidnapped 3rd accused's son. The people of the locality followed him. The de facto complainant fell down and got injured. This case is falsely foisted against him, it is submitted. [B.A.3486/08] 2 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the recovery of weapons used for infliction of injury has been effected, but the petitioners could not be arrested so far, since they are absconding. It is also submitted that a fracture is caused to the de facto complainant. 4. On considering the nature of the offence and the allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, since petitioners are not able to point out any materials to support the counter allegations. This application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.