IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2262 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRMP.813/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.394/2010 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SANAL, S/O. KUNJUMANY, AGED 30 YEARS, KANIYANTHARA THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL, S/O. KUNJUMANY, AGED 26 YEARS, KANIYANTHARA THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. VINIL, S/O. KUNJUMANY, AGED 24 YEARS, KANIYANTHARA THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. SUMESH, S/O. NARAYANAN PILLA, SMITHA BHAVAN, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.394/2010 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2262 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 427, 457 and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 19.03.2010 at about 8.30 P.M., petitioners 1 to 4 trespassed into the office of the de facto complainant and assaulted him brutally and robbed Rs. 18,400/-. They also destroyed the office furniture. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that first petitioner and de facto complainant were very good friends but later there was some difference of opinion. There was a quarrel between them on a silly issue, but nothing untoward happened and only some scuffle occurred. But de facto complainant filed a complaint, on the basis of which the present crime was registered. 4. This petition is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that considering the serious nature of the offence, anticipatory bail may not be granted. The recovery is to B.A. No. 2262 of 2010 2 be effected and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that certain assertions are made against the de facto complainant and first petitioner but there is nothing to support the same, I am also satisfied that recovery of material objects is to be effected for which petitioners presence would be required. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. ln