IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 717 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.11/2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MUTHU NAIR, CHAVAVU HOUSE, P.O.KOTTOOR, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 27 YEARS, MAT BENCH COURT, POVVAL, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD. 3. RAFEEQ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUNHI, MAT BENCH COURT,M POVVAL, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD. 4. MUNEER, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MAMMU MAT BENCH COURT, POVVAL, MULIYAR, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLICL PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, (CRIME NO.11 OF 2009 OF ADHUR POLICE STATION), KASARAGOD DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 717 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 427 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, on 19-1-2009 petitioners (A1 to A4) along with others formed into unlawful assembly and committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him, his wife and daughter using iron rod and inflicted injuries. They also committed mischief by causing damage to the house holder articles like T.V., car, etc. and caused loss to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the above crime was registered on account of political vengeance and petitioners are implicated only because of political rivalry. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that materials in the case diary reveal the involvement of petitioners in the crime. Petitioners were implicated in the F.I.R. itself. Three persons are injured in the offence. Weapons used for offence are not recovered so far and petitioners are required for recovery of weapons. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in a case of BA 717/2009 -2- this nature, considering the serious nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for recovery of weapons also. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred about one month back and petitioners are not available for interrogation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner 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.