IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7069 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.202 OF 2008 OF PERUNADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. SOMAN, AGED 57YEARS, S/O.PURUSHAN, MEMURIYIL VEEDU, KOCHUKULAM, ATHIKKAYAM. 2. VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. PURUSHAN, MEMURIYIL VEEDU, KOCHUKULAM, ATHIKKAYAM. 3. O.D. RAJU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARAN, OLIKKAL VEEDU, KANNANMON MURI, KOONAMKARA P.O., RANNI-PERUNADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:- ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.7069 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners along with other accused, formed into an unlawful assembly and followed de facto complainant in an auto rickshaw while the former was proceeding in a motorbike. They intercepted the motorcycle and assaulted de facto complainant using weapons like concrete piece, sword stick, cycle chain etc. De facto complainant sustained four injuries, which include two cut injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the allegations made against petitioners are false. Accused 1 and 2 are brothers. Their brother, one Jayakumar and de facto complainant were having some dispute between each other regarding a way. The police came to the said place on a particular day and because of this, a quarrel ensued between them and some incident between them. Accused 1 and 2 are not residing anywhere near their brother's house or the house of de facto complainant. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained are only minor injuries. Hence, BA.7069/08 2 anticipatory bail may be granted, since offence under Section 308 IPC is not involved, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that sword stick, concrete piece and cycle chain were used by accused to assault de facto complainant. Accused were forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and chasing de facto complainant while he was riding a motorcycle. They had intercepted the motorcycle and assaulted de facto complainant. It was a calculated attack. De facto complainant had sustained as many as four injuries which include two cut injuries on the forearm. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that recovery of weapons allegedly used for the offence is to be recovered, for which petitioners' interrogation will be required. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioners' interrogation is required for effecting recovery of weapons used for the offence. If anticipatory bail is granted, this chance will be lost. Considering the nature of offence and the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was committed as early as on BA.7069/08 3 9.10.2008 and petitioners are fleeing from law. The investigation is in a standstill. Only fourth accused could be arrested so far. Therefore, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.