IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3437 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.252/08 OF PARASALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. SURESH @ SURA, S/O.SASI, AGED 30 YEARS, ONAMKOODU, THEKITHOORVILAKOM, KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAYIKKOTTUKONAM P.O., PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SATHEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 23 YEARS, KODIYACHAVILAKOM, PERUMPATTUKONAM,AMARAVILA P.O., PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JAGADEESH, S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED 27 YEARS, KODIYACHAVILAKOM, PERUMPATTUKONAM, AMARAVILA P.O., PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.252 OF 2008 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3437 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. A crime is registered against the petitioners under Sections 341, 294B, 323, 324, 326, 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and also committed theft of Rs.3,000/- in furtherance of a common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was some altercation between the petitioners and the defacto complainant in respect of smoking of cigarette, which was objected to by the petitioners. A third person coming on a motor cycle saw this and joined the defacto complainant and stabbed the second petitioner. He sustained injury on the arm. A crime was registered on the basis of the statement given by one of the petitioners also against the defacto complainant etc. There is a case and counter case and hence it is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. BA.3437/08 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. He submitted that the petitioners are required for recovery of the weapon used. A tooth has been lost by the defacto complainant because of their assault. An offence under Section 326 IPC is also involved. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioners are required for interrogation and recovery. I am also satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail especially since as per the allegations both sides have engaged in an assault against each other and inflicted injuries to each other. Petitioners could not point out any materials at this stage to show that the defacto complainant is the aggressor. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.