IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3334 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.194/10 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. PRAJEESH.P.P, S/O. P. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS, MECHANIC, IRIKKUR AMSOM, KULINCHA DESOM, PERIVILATHU PARAMBU.P.O VIA KANNUR. 2. K. SUMESH, S/O. SUSHEELA, AGED 24 YEARS, COOLIE, KULINCHA DESOM, PERUVALATHU PARAMBU.P.O, VIA IRIKKUR. 3. A. SHYNU, S/O. DAMODARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, COOLIE, KULINCHA DESOM, PERUVALATHU PARAMBU.P.O, VIA IRIKKUR. 4. P.V. MADHUSOOTHANAN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 40, COOLIE, KULINCHA DESOM, PERUVALATHU PARAMBU.P.O, VIA IRIKKUR. 5. P.P. SUMESH , D/O. OTHENAN, AGED 24 YEARS, COOLIE, KULINCHA DESOM, PERUVALATHU PARAMBU.P.O, VIA IRIKKUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRIKOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3334 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 7th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 308, 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (five in number) along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and pelted stones at the defacto complainant, after wrongfully restraining him and they destroyed the car and voluntarily caused hurt to him with stones and thereby committed various offences. The incident happened on 27.4.2010 between 11.30 a.m. and 12 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a procession was proceeding peacefully, while the car driven by defacto complainant hit a person in the procession and he sustained injuries. On seeing this, certain persons gathered and defacto complainant was assaulted. Petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. Petitioners also sustained injuries, as evidenced by the wound certificates produced and marked as BA NO.3334/10 2 Annexures 2, 3 and 4. It was a Hartal day and petitioners are innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that it was a Hartal day, but as per the allegations revealed from the case diary, petitioners had assaulted defacto complainant and caused damage to the car by using stones. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the wound certificates, it can be seen that as per the wound certificate issued to first accused, history and alleged cause of injury was “R.T.A.” (road traffic accident). But, as far as the other two accused are concerned, there is history of “assault” by certain named persons and known persons. In the light of the wound certificates, Annexure A2 and A3 and on considering the facts and circumstances, it would appear that there was an assault between two groups and some of them sustained injuries. However, first accused sustained injuries in a motor accident and not as per assault. In such circumstances, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to first accused but, there is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to others. Hence, the following order is passed: BA NO.3334/10 3 (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioners 2 to 5 is rejected. (2) First accused shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail, on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) First accused shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. (ii) He shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs