IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7731 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.501/2008 OF AROOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SIBI, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, KATTABALLI HOUSE, AROOR-ALAPPUZHA. 2. JAYAN, S/O.VISWAMBARAN, KUNDAYIL HOUSE, AROOR-ALAPPUZHA. 3. RAMESAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEKALAM HOUSE, AROOR-ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AROOR POLICE STATION. 2. 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 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7731 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 427, 323, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 19.10.2008, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) in furtherance of common intention, committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted the inmates of the house and also others, who were present in the house by using iron rod due to previous enmity. They also damaged the window glasses in the house. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a counter case. First accused sustained serious injuries as evidenced by Annexure-I on the same day. The incident did not happen in the house, but it was near the house of de facto complainant. Petitioners had gone to the house of de facto complainant for the wedding of de facto complainant's brother and they were coming out while de facto complainant and other persons assaulted them and first accused is even now BA.7731/08 2 continuing treatment. De facto complainant and others did not sustain any serious injuries. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened inside the house and window glasses etc. were broken and the motive was an earlier incident in which de facto complainant's brother was assaulted by the petitioners. Iron rods were used. De facto complainant and 9 other persons in the house sustained injuries in the assault. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, from the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner, it appears that on the date of occurrence, de facto complainant's brother's marriage was conducted. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between petitioners and de facto complainant's brother on the allegation that his brother was assaulted by accused. Considering the nature of allegations made and the place where the incident occurred and various other facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant BA.7731/08 3 anticipatory bail. The mere existence of counter case is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 19.10.2008 and petitioners are not available for interrogation and investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether the surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.