IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 585 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.70/08 OF POOJAPPURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH KUMAR.M,S/O.MOHANA KUMARAN NAIR PULIARATHAKAL PUTHEN VEEDU,RSLBN 53,KESAVAN NAIR ROAD, POOJAPPURA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUNIL KUMAR.M, S/O.MOHANA KUMARAN NAIR, PULIARATHAKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, RSLBN 53, KESAVAN NAIR POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 585 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 324, 308 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) along with five others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly assaulted de facto complainant' husband with iron rod, sword, stick etc. and inflicted injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on the same day a crime was registered as crime no.69/2008 on the basis of the statement given by 6th accused who sustained serious injuries. This case is filed as a counter-blast to the other crime as crime no.70/2008 at a belated stage. The incident occurred on 29.2.2008 and the crime was registered only on 1.3.2008. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that seven persons committed offences using various [B.A.No.585/09] 2 weapons which are yet to be recovered. The de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. There was a lacerated wound measuring 7 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the scalp and another injury on the forearm and he sustained fracture and he was referred for expert management to another hospital. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides, it appears that two crimes were registered in the course of the same incident. But the mere registration of two crimes may not by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The incident occurred on 29.2.2008 and the crime was registered on the very next day i.e. within 24 hours. In a case where in the temple premises two groups fought each other, registration of another crime alone cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The weapons used for the offence are also to be recovered. 5. On considering the serious nature of the allegations made and nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the [B.A.No.585/09] 3 investigation. Whether they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them any any time and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.