IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7958 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.486/08 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. P.MUKESH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, TERUVAZHIKKATTU HOUSE, P.O.VELOOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRISCT. 2. T.G.SURESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPALAN,THIRUTHIL HOUSE, P.O. VELOOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. V.M.BINEESH, AGED 26 YEARS, KARUNATHIL HOUSE, S/O. MADAVAN, P.O. VELOOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. T.V.DILEEP, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, THUNDIYEDATH HOUSE, P.O. VELOOR, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7958 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308, 506(1) read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners who are accused 1 to 3 and 5 along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly assaulted de facto complainant and others using iron rod, sword, etc. De facto complainant and three others sustained serious injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are falsely implicated due to political rivalry. No such incident has taken place. Hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 1st accused used an iron rod, accused 2 and 3 used swords, accused 4 and 5 assaulted de facto complainant and others and serious injuries are sustained by de facto complainant and others. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The recovery of weapon is to be effected and petitioners are required for interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering BA 7958/08 -2- the serious nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, which includes recovery of the weapon allegedly used, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on 15-12-2008 and petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.