IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4687 of 2008(A) ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.616/2008 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------- 1. SOLY, VILAYILAZHEEKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM P.O.,MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 2. JOY, AMALABHAVAN, KUMBALAM P.O.,MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 3. JOSE, VILAYILAZHEEKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM P.O.,MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. PRADEEP, VILAYILAZHEEKATHU VEEDU, KUMBALAM P.O.,MULAVANA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT/STATE: ---------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKUKLAM THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST. BY SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4687 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, petitioners, in furtherance of common intention, attacked the defacto complainant and hit him with iron rod and inflicted injury on the head of the defacto complainant. This incident occurred on 08.07.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the allegations, only 1st accused had used the weapon. Therefore the petitioners 2 to 4 may be granted anticipatory bail, since no weapon was used by them. The petitioners are father and children. The 1st petitioner is an old person and he has been falsely implicated, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened on 08.07.2008 and the petitioners could not be arrested so far. The 1st petitioner hit the B.A.4687/2008 2 defacto complainant with iron rod and he sustained a lacerated injury on the head. The other accused were also carrying iron rods in their hands, as per the allegations made by the defacto complainant. The petitioners could not be arrested and the weapon was not recovered so far. They are required for custodial interrogation and for the recovery of the weapon. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and recovery of the weapon and it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac