IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3501 of 2010() ----------------------------- APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------ 1. RATHEESH, AGED 24, S/O.RAJENDRAN, PONNAPPULLITHRA HOUSE, KADAKKATHARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SIJU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.YOHANNAN, KALLAKKAVUNGAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3501 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant and one Sajeevan were travelling in a motor cycle while all the five accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons intercepted the motor cycle, and started attacking Sajeevan. De facto complainant, who was a pillion rider, intervened asking why he was attacking first accused, when de facto complainant also was attacked by using iron rod and granite stones etc. He sustained serious injuries and thereby all the accused committed the various offences alleged. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was a festival in a temple. When procession of 'Kaavadi' was going on, the de facto complainant came there and created some problems by abusing ladies who were present there. The public intervened and there was a scuffle but petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged. B.A. No. 3501 of 2010 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first and second accused, who are the petitioners herein, used iron rod and they inflicted injuries on de facto complainant and Sajeevan. They were attacked after intercepting the motor cycle in which they were travelling. It is also submitted that third accused used a granite stone also to attack the injured. The weapons used are not yet recovered and petitioners are to be interrogated. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that first and second accused are involved in two other crimes. Proceedings under Sections 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are initiated against first accused. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and effecting recovery of the weapons. Though the petitioners counsel put forward a version regarding the manner in which the incident happened, there is no circumstance or material on record to probabilise such a case. I am not satisfied of the B.A. No. 3501 of 2010 3 innocence of the petitioners. The incident happened as early as on 21.02.2010 about four months back. Two petitions filed by petitioners were dismissed, since there was no representation. Petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation and surrender before the investigating officer without any delay. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln