IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5218 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.292/08 OF POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. BICHU.S,AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SUDEVAN, VAIDYA MANDIRAM, OYOOR WARD, VELINALLOOR PANCHAYATH, OYOOR.P.O. 2. THAMPI @ MELOOTTU THAMPI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI MELOOTU VEEEDU, OYOOR.P.O, VELINALLOOR, OYOOR. 3. ANEESH.S, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SWARARAGAM, OYOOR.P.O, VELINALLOOR, OYOOR. 4. SREEJITH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SREEJITH BHAVAN, NETTAYAMP.O, AMBALAMKUNNU. 5. RENJITH.R, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.RAGHU NADHAN, REJITH BHAVAN, NETTAYAM.P.O, AMBALAMKUNNU, ELAMADU PANCHAYATH. 6. VISHNU RAJ, AGED 16 YEARS, S/O.N.BABU RAJAN PILLAI, VISHNU VILASAM, CHERUVAKKAL.P.O, AYOOR. 7. MANIKANTAN, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.NATARAJAN PRAVILA VEEDU, NETTAYAM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5218 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioners are accused 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 in the crime. According to prosecution, petitioner, along with other accused, formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons like Sword etc. assaulted the de facto complainant and caused fracture etc. to him and on a statement given by him, a crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused 2, 5, 11 and 13 were arrested and they were granted bail. Petitioners have not committed any offence, but they were attacked by the de facto complainant and others while they were standing in front of a hospital for conducting a procession. The de facto complainant and others assaulted the petitioners and others and they also sustained injuries and a crime was registered in connection with the assault on the petitioners as Crime No.293/2008. Learned counsel for BA.5218/08 2 petitioners submitted that the petitioners are all students, aged about 20-22 years. Therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first accused used a sword against the de facto complainant and other petitioners also assaulted him. All of them have taken part in the assault and it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. Fracture was also caused to the de facto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides, in an offence of this nature, in which the de facto complainant sustained a fracture and the accused allegedly used weapon etc. and whose specific involvement is to be disclosed in investigation, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since no sufficient materials are available at this stage to hold that the de facto complainant is the aggressor. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.