IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6702 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.337/2008 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. LALU @ KORADY, PANDIMAMVILA VEEDU, PALLICHAN VILLAGE, NARUVANMOODU.P.O. 2. MARTIN, VELLOPPALLYKAVINPURATHU VEEDU, PALLICHAN VILLAGE, NARUVAMOODU.P.O. 3. KATTADI SUNI, VELLOPPALLYKAVINPURATHU VEEDU, PALLICHAN VILLAGE, NARUVANMOODU.P.O. 4. KUMAR, KOTTAYAMMUKKU LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, PALLICHAN VILLAGE, NARUVANMOODU.P.O. 5. SAJU, PANAYILI VEEDU, PALLICHAN VILLAGE, NARUVAMOODU.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. Bail Appl..No. 6702 of 2008(E) 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6702 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 and 2, 4 to 6) along with 3rd accused formed into an unlawful assembly and committed house trespass into the shop of the defacto complainant's uncle, assaulted him and grandmother. The chain worn by defacto complainant was also snatched away by the accused. Wooden sticks were used for the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that third accused was arrested on 07.08.2008 and he was remanded. The incident occurred on 05.08.2008 and on that day at 9.30 p.m., the third accused was assaulted and he sustained injuries as evidenced by Annexure B. Accused nos.1 and 2 went to the hospital along with third accused. But police did not register any crime in respect of the said incident. There was some altercation between the parties when third accused went to the shop for purchasing some article. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. B.A.6702 of 2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, there was an attack by petitioners and another against defacto complainant's uncle and various others. The chain was also taken away and weapon was used for the offence. The incident occurred on 05.08.2008 at 8 p.m. and the defacto complainant's uncle and aunt sustained injury. On the facts, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and the weapons used are to be recovered by the interrogation of the petitioners, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I find that Annexure B wound certificate relates to an offence committed at 9.30 p.m. But the offence in this case is allegedly committed at 8 p.m. Learned counsel for petitioners has not explained the discrepancy to convince the court there is a counter attack on the same day, at same time and at the same place. For the mere reason that third accused had sustained some injury at a different time, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioners. Considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required and particularly the need for recovery of the alleged weapon, I am satisfied that it is not B.A.6702 of 2008 3 a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 05.08.2008 and petitioners are not co-operated with the investigation so far. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before Investigating Officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest them at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac