IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 2481 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.148/08 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS:ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. VISOBH,AGED 22,S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR VIJAYA NIVAS, K.R. PURAM P.O. CHERTHALA 2. BABU,AGED 38,S/O. KUMARAN, KARODU KADAVU, K.R. PURAM, CHARTHALA 3. SANTHOSH,AGED 35 S/O.KUMARAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, K.R.PURAM, CHERTHALA 4. VINEESH, AGED 21, S/O. THANKAMMA VALEZHATHU VELI,K.R.PURAM, CHERTHALA 5. ABHILASJ,S/O. MOHANAN VALEZHATHU VELI,K.R.PURAM, CHERTHALA 6. PRAJESH, AGED 23,S/O.PRAKSHAN, VALEZHATHU VELI,K.R.PURAM, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERTHALA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.2481 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, A1 to A6 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences against the defacto complainant and others. The first accused beat the defacto complainant with an iron rod and inflicted fracture. The second accused beat him with a stick and caused injuries. A3 to A6 came running, on seeing the incident, and they beat and kicked the defacto complainant, are the allegations. The incident occurred on 22.2.2008 at about 11 a.m. The crime was registered under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident did not take place as alleged. In connection with some festival in the temple, an incident occurred in which, the petitioners were assaulted by the defacto complainant and others. A case was registered on the statement given by the BA NO.2481/08 2 third accused much earlier to the registration of the crime in this case. As per the allegations, on the same day at 10.30 am. defacto complainant and others attacked the petitioners 1 to 3 (A1 to A3 herein) with deadly weapons and inflicted injuries. A3 gave a statement from the hospital and he had sustained an injury on the top of his head by cutting with chopper. Iron rods were also used against A1 and A2 and they are also injured. They were all hospitalised and the body note of all the three were recorded at the bottom of the First Information Statement itself, it is submitted. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners this crime is registered as a counter blast, after registration of the crime on the statement given by the third accused in this case. It is only after knowing that a complaint is registered on the same day at 3.30 p.m., that after three days of the incident, a statement was given by the defacto complainant in this case and a crime was registered against the petitioners as crime No.148 of 2008. 5. Learned public prosecutor pointed out that this is not a case and counter case. The incident in this case happened at BA NO.2481/08 3 11 a.m. whereas the incident in crime No.137/08 occurred at 10.30 a.m. as per the First Information Statement. It appears that the accused retaliated to the incident which occurred at 10.30 a.m. ater half an hour and the defacto complainant and others were attacked using weapons and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail especially since weapons are to be recovered, it is argued. 6. On hearing both sides, it is clear that with respect to an incident which occurred at 10.30 a.m. a statement was given by the third accused herein on the very same day of the incident at 3.30 p.m. making allegations against the defacto complainant and others attack on petitioners by using weapons like chopper, iron rod etc. It is also clear from the records that the third accused had sustained injuries on the top of his head which was allegedly caused by a chopper. It has also come out that A1 and A2 were also injured and they were hospitalised. If the contentions of the prosecution are to be accepted, accused herein would have waited for half an hour to retaliate, that too, after sustained serious bleeding injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the incident happened on the BA NO.2481/08 4 same day at the same place and time which can be substantiated at the time of evidence. It is also submitted that the accused Nos. 3 to 6 in this case even as per the admitted case only had rushed the spot and allegedly beaten and kicked the defacto complainant and others and no weapons were used by them. 7. On hearing both sides, I found that the following order can be passed: (1) The request for anticipatory bail by the first and second accused cannot be granted since weapons are to be recovered and their presence is required for interrogation by the police. (2) The petitioners 3 to 6 are granted anticipatory bail on the following terms and conditions: (i) Petitioners 3 to 6 shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and make themselves available for interrogation by the police. (ii) In the event of the arrest of petitioners 3 to 6, they shall be released on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that they shall BA NO.2481/08 5 appear before the Investigating officer as and when directed and they shall not get involved in connection with any crime relating to the same dispute. In case of breach of this condition bail is liable to be cancelled. The petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl