IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2009 / 2ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6886 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2242/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD CRIME NO.458/08 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS ------------------- 1. FAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS,S/O.ABBAS KOTTIKULAM, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. RAJIAS, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIM,SAJEENA MANZIL, KOTTIKULAM,HOSDURG TALUK. 3. ASHRAF AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,ANNAN HOUSE KOTTIKULAM HOSDURG TALUK. 4. SHAMSHEER AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SHAFFI,KOTTIKULAM,HOSDURG TALUK 5. RAUF AGED 24 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, METRO HOUSE, KOTTIKULAM,HOSDURG TALUK. 6. NIYAS AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, ABDUL RAHMAN HOUSE, KOTTIKULAM, HOSDURG TALUK. 7. ABDU AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.SATHAR, KOTTIKULAM, HOSDURG TALUK. 8. GAFOOR AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.A.U.ABDULLA MAKOD HOUSE, MALPARAMBA,KALNAD,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.458 OF 2008 OF BEKAL POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6886 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427 and 506(2) read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused 1 to 7 and 9), along with 8th accused formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with weapons like iron block and iron rod, assaulted de facto complainant and his brother and inflicted injuries on them. De facto complainant sustained fracture to the nasal bone. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that all the offences involved in this case are bailable offences, but subsequently, a certificate is obtained form the private hospital showing that there is a fracture. Therefore, petitioners apprehend arrest in a non-bailable offence. It is submitted that on the same day on 16.10.2008, accused were attacked by de facto complainant and others and four different crimes were registered against them. Almost all the accused BA.6886/08 2 sustained injuries at the hands of de facto complainant and others at different places. They were chased and attacked. But, all the offences involved in those crimes are bailable offences. Only in this case a non bailable offence is included with a veiw to harass petitioners, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was an intended attacked by petitioners on de facto complainant and his brother and weapons were also used. A fracture is also sustained by de facto complainant and though the sections included were bailable offences originally, it was subsequently revealed that a fracture was also caused and hence, Section 326 IPC is added. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners were not available for arrest and interrogation, though the incident occurred as early as on 16.10.2008. The sole fact that there are four other crimes registered at the BA.6886/08 3 instance of accused, may not by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Petitioners 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.