IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6492 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2617/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.486/08 OF VADAKANCHERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------------------- SATHEES.T.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN, THUVARAKKUNNIL HOUSE, RAKKANDY DESOM, KANNAMBRA I VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ROJO J.THURUTHIPARA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6492 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (first accused) along with three others allegedly assaulted de facto complainant's son. First accused used a stick and de facto complainant intervened. He was also assaulted. De facto complainant lost three teeth and mobility of one of the teeth was affected also. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that other co- accused are granted bail. There is also counter case. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is specific allegation against petitioner, who is first accused and he had used stick for offence. Recovery of weapon used is not effected so far and he is required for interrogation and recovery. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and considering the nature of investigation BA.6492/08 2 required, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Mere existence of counter case is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. So also, the fact that co- accused are granted bail also cannot be taken into account for granting anticipatory bail to petitioner. The incident happened as early as on 5.7.2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation for more than three months. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.