IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 327 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.484/08 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------- 1. UMMER P.K., AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAMU, PUZHANGARA ILLATH, VELLARAKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. IBRAHIM, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VELLARKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 3. NOUSHAD,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. HAMSA, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, VELLARKKAD VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.484/08) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 327 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 364, 323, 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) in furtherance of common intention, abducted de facto complainant and assaulted him using iron rod. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is political rivalry between de facto complainant and petitioners. De facto complainant is the worker of LDF and petitioners are workers of UDF. There is a counter case against de facto complainant, who molested a woman and the people of the locality assaulted him and a crime was registered. No injury is sustained by de facto complainant and the allegations are false. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant and another were travelling in a motor car while petitioners followed them in BA.327/09 2 another motor car and blocked them and de facto complainant was forcibly taken into the car, in which the accused were travelling and he was assaulted and taken to a distance and dropped. Even after dropping, he was assaulted. Iron rod was used for the offence and de facto complainant sustained injuries. The motive alleged is that first accused was having illicit relationship with a relative of de facto complainant and de facto complainant divulged this fact to some others. This offended first accused and hence, accused have committed the offence in furtherance of common intention. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the nature of investigation required, including recovery of weapon allegedly used, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. None of the facts stated by petitioners persuaded me to invoke Section 438 Cr.P.C to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is pointed out for grant of anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 14.12.2008 and petitioners BA.327/09 3 are required for investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioners shall 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. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since this Court has already ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, on appreciation of the facts and circumstances and hence, any order passed to the contrary in any subsequent application for anticipatory bail may amount to review, which is not permissible in law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.