IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6708 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------ CRMP.4115/2008 of SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.242/2008 OF SANTHAPARA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6, 8 & 9 : ----------------------------------------------- 1. SADATH P.M., S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 30, CHALICKAL HOUSE, MURIKUMTHOTTY KARA, POOPPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DT. 2. SHAKKER @ HUSSAIN, S/O.KOCHUMUHAMMED, AGED 31, MUDIKUNNEL HOUSE, DO... DO... DO... 3. IQUBAL V.M., S/O.MOIDEENKUNJU, AGED 27, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, DO....DO....DO.... BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/STATE : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DEVIKULAM. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.6708 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 307, 324 read with 149 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was travelling in an auto rickshaw along with another person driven by one Shiju and when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw a lorry coming from the opposite direction and one of the accused stating to “kill by hitting the lorry” and first accused hit the lorry against auto rickshaw. Defacto complainant fell down out of the auto rickshaw. All the three in the auto rickshaw sustained serious injuries. The other accused were travelling in the auto rickshaw, which were following the lorry and all the accused formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant and others using iron rod etc. This happened on 29.08.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are accused nos.6, 8 and 9 and there was enimity B.A.No.6708 of 2008 2 between the 2 groups, since petitioners who originally belonged to the CITU union changed their affiliation and formed INTUC union. They are all auto rickshaw drivers. On the same day, at the same place at 5 p.m., petitioners were attacked by defacto complainant and others and a crime was also registered against them as per Annexure A1. Petitioners were also injured and hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that on the facts of this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The defacto complainant and 2 others sustained serious injuries. It is also pointed out that as per the allegations, half an hour after the incident in this case another incident is alleged to have occurred, in which petitioners sustained injuries. Both cases have no connection with each other and on that basis, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. The recovery of the weapon is to be effected and only accused nos.1, 3 and 7 were arrested. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of B.A.No.6708 of 2008 3 allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am least inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. No ground is made out to grant anticipatory bail. i) Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No anticipatory application of petitioners will be entertained hereafter. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac