IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6958 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.161/08 OF KOORACHUNDU POLICE (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. RAZAQU S/O. CHEKKOOTTY, AGED 30 YEARS, KOLLANARI HOUSE, NARAYAMKULAM AMSOM, KAYANNA POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. MOOSSA, S/O. CHEKKOOTY, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLLANARI HOUSE, NARAYANMKULAM AMSOM, KAYANNA POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. NOUSHAD, S/O. KUNHIMOIDY, AGED 35 YEARS, THACHANOTH HOUSE, NARAYAMKULAM AMSOM, KAYANNA POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. VINODAN, S/O. KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 32, KOLLANARIMEETHAL, NARAYAMKULAM AMSOM, KAYANNA POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6958 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 16.9.2008, at about 7 p.m., while defacto complainant was going through the pathway leading to the house of one Divakaran master, petitioners in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him and he sustained a fracture to the nasal bone. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. People of the locality were protesting defacto complainant's frequent visits to a house close to Divakaran master since defacto complainant was allegedly having some illicit relationship with a woman in the said house. Despite objection from people of the locality, he used to visit the house and hence, some altercation occurred between people of the locality and the defacto complainant. But, defacto complainant falsely implicated petitioners as assailants in this case. He also alleged a specific motive for commission of the offence which is false, it is submitted. No fracture is caused, it is BA No.6958/2008 2 submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that A1 used a reaper and A2 used an iron rod for beating defacto complainant. A4 wrongfully restrained him and A3 beat him with hands and he sustained a fracture to the nasal bone. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that weapons of offence are to be recovered for which the interrogation of the accused will be necessary. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is only bare assertions on the part of petitioners regarding their innocence. The names of accused find a place in the FIR itself. The weapons of offence are to be recovered. On consideration of the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for investigation. Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl