IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5275 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1667/2008 IN CRIME NO.342/2008 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : 1ST ACCUSED ----------------- SANTHOSH, 33YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN VELIYIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, K.R.PURAM PO., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANTONY JOSEPH RESPONDENT:COMPLAINANT ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, CHERTHALA, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5275 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, in furtherance of common intention, petitioner who is the first accused along with other accused allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted fracture on the hand as well as on the knee. A crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant had attacked the petitioner. He also submitted that the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per the order dated 9.7.2008 in B.A.No.4124/2008 and order dated 4.8.2008 in B.A.No.4615/2008. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that an iron rod was used by the petitioner for the offence and the weapon is not recovered. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery. BA No.5275/2008 2 5. On hearing both sides, particularly on going through the orders referred above, I find that the co-accused were granted anticipatory bail, since their involvement in the offence and the identity were under dispute. The reasons for granting anticipatory bail are stated in the orders themselves. It cannot be said that the petitioner and co-accused are similarly placed and hence, petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the anticipatory bail orders passed by this Court. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl