IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7500 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.713/08 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESH, S/O.SADANANDAN, KOZHIKODANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. 2. SUDHEESH, S/O.SADANANDAN, KOZHIKODANTHARA HOUSE, VADAYAR, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7500 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 308, 294 (b), 344, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners 3 and 4 (accused 1 and 2) in furtherance of common intention allegedly committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him and two others and they sustained injuries. Iron rod and sticks were used for committing offence. The incident occurred on 11.10.2008 at 4.30 PM. 3. According to petitioners, on 11.10.2008 in the morning, de facto complainant had trespassed into the property of petitioners and it was questioned and therefore, the complaint is lodged. It is also alleged that petitioners were assaulted and an earlier application filed for anticipatory bail as B.A.No.7019 of 2008, was dismissed on 17.11.2008 (vide Annexure-A5). Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this Court found in Annexure A-5 order that the wound BA.7500/08 2 certificate is not produced and hence the wound certificate is now produced as Annexure-A2. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that various contentions raised by petitioners were considered by this Court at length in Annexure-A5 order and it was found that petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail, especially since the weapons used by them are to be recovered, for which their interrogation is required. Though the incident occurred as early as on 11.10.2008, accused have not surrendered before the court in spite of lapse of so many days and in spite of the directions issued as per Annexure A5 order. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I had already rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail made by petitioners. A direction was also issued to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation as early as on 17.11.2008. petitioners have not complied with the said order and the investigation is BA.7500/08 3 protracted. It is the duty of the court to see that persons, who evades law, surrenders. In the above circumstances, I find that there is absolutely no reason to grant anticipatory bail. 6. It is made clear that no further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners will be entertained hereafter. The police is at liberty to arrest petitioners at any time and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.