IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2793 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.2037/2010. CRIME NO.86/2010 OF ARALAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 ---------------------------------------------- 1. CHALI @ RAFEEQUE.K.RASAK,S/O.SEETHI, DRIVER,AGED 26 YEARS,KUNNEKATTIL HOUSE, KEEZHPALLI. 2. KONGOLA JAIMON,S/O.ALEX,AGED 25 YEARS, KONGOLA HOUSE,KEEZHPALLI,CHATHIROOR, KEEZHPALLI.PO. 3. KONGOLA BAVA @ JAYESH,S/O.ALEX, AGED 21 YEARS,KONGOLA HOUSE,KEEZHPALLI, CHATHIROOR,KEEZHPALLI.PO. 4. KONGOLA JOJO,S/O.ALEX,AGED 19 YEARS, KONGOLA HOUSE,KEEZHPALLI,CHATHIROOR, KEEZHAPILLI. 5. KONGOLA BABY SEBASTIAN,S/O.SEBASTIAN, DRIVER,AGED 19 YEARS,KONGOLA HOUSE,CHATHIROOR, KEEZHPALLI. 6. SANTHOSH,S/O.PAUL,AGED 30 YEARS, KOCHIMALAYIL HOUSE,KEEZHAPPILLI HOUSE,KEEZHPALLI, CHATHIROOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SRI.ANIL D.KAITHAKAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- S.H.O.ARALAM,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2793 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(accused nos.1 to 6) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using knife and thereby committed the above offences. The incident happened on 11.3.2010 at about 7 P.M. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is included only with a view to harass petitioner. As per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, petitioners aimed a stab at the neck of de facto complainant but hit fell on the back side of the de facto complainant. Offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is not involved, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that is the second application for anticipatory bail. B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 2 The earlier application was dismissed as per Annexure-2 order. The weapon is not so far recovered. On the facts of the case this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. A knife was used for commission of the offence and injury of considerable nature are sustained by de facto complainant on the forehead as well as near the spine which is 6 cm deep. The injury on the forehead was sutured also. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. As per annexure A2 order, the earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as early as on 16.04.2010. It was observed in the said order by another bench of this court as follows: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in progress. It is B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 3 also relevant to note the grievous nature of the injures sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries which are also relevant facts which persuade this Court to decline anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There fore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.” 6. I do not find any reason to come to a different view. The incident happened more than 4 months back and the investigation is in stand still, since the petitioners have not co- operated with the investigation. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made also, I am of opinion that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. Petitioners are B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 4 bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co- operate with the investigation without any delay. 2. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained in this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln