IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6675 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.356/2008 OF CHADERA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. DIGESH.P., S/O.K.P.V. DAMODHARAN, AGED 21 YEARS, THALICHALAM, PATTAKKARAN, P.O.ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. JAYESH T.V., S/O.CHERIAKKAN, AGED 23 YEARS, THALICHALAM, THAIVALAPPIL, P.O.ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. VINOD T.V., S/O.O.KARUNAKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, THALICHALAM, THAIVALAPPIL, P.O.ELAMBACHI, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.6675 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 379, 435 read with 149 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 to 3) along with others formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the porch of the house of defacto complainant and took away the motor cycle from the porch and set fire to the same and thereby the defacto complainant suffered a loss of Rs.20,000/-. 3. According to petitioner, the incident did not occur, as alleged. Petitioners are members of CPI(M) and they are innocent of the allegations made. The investigation is almost over and petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime was registered as early as on 09.10.2008 and petitioners are not available for investigation. B.A.No.6675 of 2008 2 They are required for the purpose of interrogation and investigation. On the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and also the stage of the investigation, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out to invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are required for investigation and hence the following order is passed :- i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners will be entertained by this court in this crime, since considering the facts and nature of the allegations made, this court has already found that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order B.A.No.6675 of 2008 3 to the contrary will amount to review of this order, which is not permissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac