IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3589 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.125/2010 OF KANJIKUZHI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT ......... PETITIONERS:A2 & A3 -------------------------------- 1. JIJI, S/O.POULOSE, AYASTHUPADATHU HOUSE, ALPARA P.O., KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. BENNY S/O.JOSEPH, ALAKKAPPALLIL HOUSE, ALPARA P.O., KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH JOHN SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3589 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (A2 and A3) along with first accused, on 24.05.2010 at about 7.30 P.M., in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using stone, iron rod and committed various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners in respect of the same incident, crime no. 126/2010 was also registered, on the statement given by second accused. First accused in this case was granted bail by this court. It is also submitted that there is no corresponding injury to the blow allegedly inflicted. As per the allegation, only one blow was inflicted on the head, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that granting of bail to first accused after his arrest is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. De facto complainant is the vice present of a Panchayath and he was attacked by third accused using iron rod and sword. He sustained injury also on the head as revealed B.A. No. 3589 / 2010 2 from the wound certificate. The injury sustained was linear laceration on the head. Iron rod is used by the second accused and it is to be recovered for which custodial interrogation is necessary in this case. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. Custodial interrogation of the accused is needed for effecting recovery of the weapon allegedly used for the offence. The injuries sustained by de facto complainant are linear lacerated injuries and the weapon used is iron rod, which prima facie corroborating prosecution case. 6. I am satisfied that the allegations made against petitioners are serious in nature and considering various other facts and circumstances also, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln