IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7019 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.713/08 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SADANANDAN, AGED 55 YEARS, KAZHIKADANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYUR, VAIKOM. 2. SATHI, W/O SADANANDAN, KOZHIKODANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. 3. SATHEESH, S/O SADANANDAN, KOZHIKODANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. 4. SUDHEESH, S/O SADANANDAN, KOZHIKODANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 7019 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 308, 294(b), 344, 323 read with 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners 3 and 4 (A1 and A2) in furtherance of common intention allegedly committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him and two others and they sustained injury. Iron rod and sticks were used for committing offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. On the crucial day, on 11.10.2008, in the morning, the de facto complainant trespassed into the property of petitioners. He was questioned on this, and this was not to his liking. Therefore, in the evening, while 2nd accused was taking his father in a motor cycle to the hospital and when they reached near the house of de facto complainant, they intercepted them and assaulted them. Second petitioner sustained injuries. A complaint was given on the very next day but no crime was registered. They refused to register a case on the basis of Annexure- A1 complaint, it is submitted. However, on knowing that 2nd accused filed a complaint against de facto complainant, the present compliant is falsely foisted against petitioners. Petitioners are members of scheduled caste community and de facto complainant and his people apprehended that some complaints would be laid against them under the provisions of SC/ST (PA) Act, it is submitted. [B.A.mo.7019/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both A1 and A2 used weapons. A1 beat the de facto complainant with iron rod and A2 beat him with stick. De facto complainant and others sustained injuries. De facto complainant had lacerated wound 4 x 3 cm on the face having depth of 2 cm. Another person had abrasions and lacerated wound on his ear and the 3rd person had tenderness on the back side. The weapons used by accused are to be recovered but petitioners are not available for interrogation. Though the petitioners were allegedly assaulted by de facto complainant and others, none of the petitioners sustained any injury, learned Public Prosecutor submitted. It is also submitted that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to A1 and A2 (petitioners 3 and 4). However, he submitted that names of petitioners 1 and 2 are delited from array of accused. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that, as per the allegations , in this case, the incident occurred inside the house. Weapons were also used by 1st and 2nd accused. Lacerated wounds having considerable dimensions was caused on de facto complainant. Two other persons had also sustained injuries. But no material is produced to show that any one of the petitioners sustained injury in the incident. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that petitioners are to be interrogated and weapons allegedly used by them are to be recovered. The incident occurred as early as on 11.10.2008 and the accused were not available for interrogation. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The Prayer for anticipatory bail by Petitioners 3 and 4 (A1 and A2) are rejected. [B.A.mo.7019/08 3 2) A1 and A2 shall surrender before investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police shall be at liberty to arrest them in accordance with law. 3) The prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioners 1 and 2 (A3 and A4) is rejected, since their names are deleted from the array of accused. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.