IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 577 of 2009 ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 5/2009 OF ARYANKODE POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN NAIR, EDAVILAKATHU VEEDU, NETTANY, KEEZHAVOOR P.O. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.SASEENDRAN, ROADARIKATHU VEEDU, NETTANY, KEEZHAVOOR P.O. 3. RINU KUMAR, S/O.SURENDRAN, THOTTATHU VEEDU, NETTANY, KEZHAVOOR P.O. 4. SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.SASEENDRAN, PANCHAMI NIVAS, NETTANY, KEZHAVOOR P.O. BY ADV. MR.G.SUDHEER KARAKONAM. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.577 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 392, 308 and 34 I.P.C. read with 27 of Arms Act. According to prosecution, on 02.01.2009 at 7 p.m., accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant using sword and also committed theft of a gold chain and committed the offences under the above said sections. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. First petitioner was on duty at the relevant time, on 02.01.2009 as evidenced by Annexure D series. He is a KSRTC Driver and the allegations made against petitioners are false. No incident has happened, as alleged. It is also pointed out that as per the mahazar, some cuts were seen on a motor cycle. But in the F.I.Statement, no such allegation is made. At the place of occurrence, no evidence was seen at the time of preparation of B.A.No.577 of 2009 2 mahazar. According to petitioners, the defacto complainant sustained 2 injuries from some other place and petitioners are falsely implicated. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that at this stage, Annexure D documents cannot be accepted, since the genuineness of the same cannot be confirmed. It is also submitted that the incident happened since a way was constructed by first accused through the property of the defacto complainant and due to this, there was a dispute on the date of occurrence. First accused beat him with hands and second accused used sword and inflicted incised injuries. It is also submitted that weapon is used and the investigation is at the initial stage. All the relevant facts pointed out are to be investigated into and at this stage, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The recovery of the weapon used is to be effected and the fact remains that the defacto complainant sustained incised injuries and he was hospitalised, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and on considering the B.A.No.577 of 2009 3 serious nature of the allegations made, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the recovery of the weapon is to be effected. The crime is registered on 03.01.2009 and petitioners are required for investigation and hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac