IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7831 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 611/2008 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 5 ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.YUNUS, S/O.SAINUDHEEN, AGED 27 YEARS, FENTASIA HOUSE, POST NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. M.V.MUSTAQ, S/O.USMAN KOYA, AGED 27 YEARS, A.T.HOUSE, POST NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. P.P.FAIZAL BABU, S/O.ALIKOYA, AGED 28 YEARS, PARAYIPARAMBA, POST ARAKKINAR, BEYPOOR, KOZHIKODE. 4. SAKKARIA C.P., S/O.LATHEEF, CHERIYA ALUNKAL VEEDU, POST CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 5. SHAMEER, S/O.MOIDEENKOYA, AGED 23 YEARS, ILAMUTTOM PARAMBU, SHARMILA VILLA, POST ARAKKINAR, MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLALAM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7831 OF 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 20th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 324, 326 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1, A3, A5 and A6) along with others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted de facto complainant using reeper and inflicted fracture and other injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners and de facto complainant are friends and petitioners were injured and they were hospitalized, but no crime was registered in respect of the incident. Hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner and seven identifiable persons assaulted de facto complainant and he sustained fracture. Weapon is to be recovered and petitioners are required for interrogation. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides,considering the allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail. The facts submitted by learned counsel BA 7831/2008 -2- for petitioners will not be sufficient to extend the benefit to petitioners under section 438 Cr.P.C. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case where two groups assaulted each other. The incident happened as early as on 29-11-2008 and petitioners are required for investigation. 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. It is made clear that no further application by petitioners for anticipatory bail in this crime will be entertained by this Court hereafter. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.