IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 123 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- (CR.NO.1277/08 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHABEER MOHAMMED, SHIHAZ MANZIL, VADAVADAKKU, KARUNAGAPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, HIGH COURT BLDGS., KOCHI. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPALLY. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPALLY. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1 TO R3 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 123 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 324, 326 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner and de facto complainant's friend had some difference of opinion, following an altercation between them. On the date of occurrence petitioner and others came to de facto complainant and enquired about “Prince” under the impression that he was hidden by de facto complainant. When he explained about his ignorance, he was assaulted by petitioner and others using iron rod and de facto complainant sustained a fracture on his arm. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent. According to petitioner, petitioner is a witness in a case against one 'Soman Pillai' who is a political leader. Therefore, petitioner is falsely implicated. Petitioner has not committed any offence and there is no motive for petitioner and there is no rivalry between petitioner and de facto complainant . 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA 123/09 -2- submitted that the nature of the allegations made against petitioner is serious. The facts stated by petitioner's counsel are insufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Recovery of weapon for the offence is to be effected and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred on 14-12-2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation and the investigation in a stand still. Hence, 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. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.