IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 748 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.113/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... (CRIME NO.13/2009 REGISTERED BY THE KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. ADHIL ANSARI , S/O.MUHAMMAD ANSARI ALIYETTU HOUSE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O. 2. SONY MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW JOSEPH MORKALICKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O. 3. SOBIN MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW MATTUKUZHYIL HOUSE, WEST OTHERA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT GOVT. PLEADER AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KOTTAYAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 748 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 326, 323 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A3) in furtherance of common intention trespassed into the courtyard of the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him as well as his mother. Chopper was used for commission of the offfence and a fracture was caused to the nasal bone of the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence with criminal intention. There was a farewell party in the de facto complainant's house, which was attended to by petitioners, who are his friends. All of them are young and there was some altercation and the de facto complainant fell down and sustained injuries. It is also submitted that the mother of de facto complainant was not present and no injury is sustained by her. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that it is likely that the matter will be settled between the parties. Therefore, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the weapon of offence is to be recovered. [B.A.No.748/2009] 2 Fracture is sustained by hitting with handle of the chopper on the face. All the accused have committed offences in furtherance of common intention and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the mother of de facto complainant was assaulted by petitioners. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any special circumstance which will persuade me to invoke the provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the nature of the investigation required, which include recovery of weapon, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 11.1.2009 and petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or Magistrate court concerned, without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them at any time and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.