IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7389 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.554/2008 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER:2ND ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- LATHEEF, S/O.MAMMU, NAMMATHTHAZHAKUNI HOUSE, IRINGANNOOR AMSOM DESOM VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7389 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 427, 341, 324, 308 red with section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, A1 to A3 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and caused damage to the autorickshaw by breaking glasses etc. and assaulted him by using G.I. Pipe and inflicted injuries on him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the 2nd accused and no specific allegation is made against him in the first information statement. No overt act is attributed to petitioner and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that petitioner interfered in a quarrel which took place between first accused and de facto complainant in respect autorickshaw charge and the petitioner is innocent. 3. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that petitioner has no role in the crime. First accused had assaulted de facto complainant by beating with G.I. Pipe and when he ran away, he was chased by him and it was the 2nd and 3rd accused who wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and he was again beaten up by the first accused. All the persons have acted in furtherance of common [B.A.No.7389/08] 2 intention. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out as to why section 438 Cr.P.C. shall be invoked. The crime is registered as early on 5.10.2008 and petitioner has not so far co- operated with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before investigating officer or the Magistrate court cornered and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime shall be entertained by this Court hereafter, since on the facts of this case, this Court has ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and hence, any order passed to the contrary in any subsequent application for anticipatory bail amount to review, which is not permissible. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.