IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5311 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.221/2007 OF CITY POLCIE STATIION, KANNUR) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2-4 -------------------------------------------- 1. R.ROOPENDER, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 24 YEARS, SREE DURGA, NALLUMUKKU, CHIRACKAL AMSOM, KANNUR. 2. GOKUL, S/O.KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 18 YEARS, VANDOTHUM VEEDU, VARANDATHADINATHU, KANNUR. 3. VIJAY, S/O.SHANMUGHAM, AGED 18 YEARS, KANNUR AMSOM, AYIKKARA LAKSHMIPURAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No. 5311 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307 and 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 9.11.2007 at 9.40 p.m. while the de facto complainant and his friend were proceeding on a public road, the petitioners along with others allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant's friend with intention to kill him. 3. Petitioners are accused nos.2 to 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only two persons were named in the first information statement as accused and they are implicated as accused nos. 1 and 2. But, subsequently, on investigation, the name of the 2nd accused was deleted and the names of petitioners were included. Petitioners and de facto complainant are known to each other and the motive for the crime is some dispute in respect of playing cricket. Therefore, the absence of mentioning the names of the petitioners in the first information statement itself would indicate that petitioners are implicated on an afterthought. [B.A.No.5311/08] 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on earlier occasion, application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioners before this Court and it was dismissed on merit. The materials in the case diary will reveal that the petitioners are actually involved in the offence. Weapons were used and the incident occurred as early as in 2007. There is no change in circumstance and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 9.11.2007 and the earlier bail application was considered on merit and dismissed. I do not find any reason to come to a different finding on fact. Petitioners could not be arrested inspite of expiry of 10 months after the incident. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation. If they are arrested and produced before Magistrate court concerned and if any bail application is filed, it shall be disposed of on merit in accordance with law without delay. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.No.5311/08] 3