IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6229 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.105/08 OF POTHANIKKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. SUNIL DAS, S/O.DAS, AGED 32 YEARS, PANNARAKUNNEL, KARIMANNOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. HUSSAIN.C.A, S/O.ALIYAR, AGED 35 YEARS, CHOZHAMKUNNEL,KUMARAMANGALAM P.O.,THODUPUZHA. 3. ANIL P.SANKAR, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 26, PUTHENPURACKAL, KARIMANNOOR P.O.,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SI OF POLICE, POTHANIKKAD, THOURGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6229 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 308, 395 and 120B read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 4 had teased the de facto complainant's wife and she had lodged a complaint against them. Being infuriated by this, they arranged accused 7 to 12, who are hired goondas to assault the de facto complainant. The arrangement was made through accused 5 and 6. They conspired together to commit the various offences, and while the de facto complainant, who is an auto rickshaw driver, was travelling in his auto rickshaw, 11th accused hired the auto rickshaw and on the way, accused 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 who were waiting, gave signal to stop the vehicle and got into the auto rickshaw and removed the de facto complainant to the back seat, inserted a cloth in her mouth, and thereafter he was taken to a distant place and assaulted. He sustained fracture to the leg and various other injuries and he was left back near a Masjid. 3. Petitioners are accused 9 to 11 in the crime. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused 1 to 6 are the BA.6229/08 2 persons, who have enmity towards the de facto complainant and 7th accused is a goonda. Petitioners have no role in the crime. 7th accused was coming in a car while accused 9 to 11 sought for a lift and they also got into the car because of their previous acquaintance with the 7th accused. The 7th accused and some others committed the offences but petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the 12th accused is excluded by the police and no investigation is conducted against him. Petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the crime is a calculated and pre-planned one. Iron rods were also used in the offence, and a fracture was also caused to the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that investigation is conducted against all the accused and the 12th accused was arrested also. His arrest was recorded while he was in custody in other crimes. In an offence of this nature, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that considering the nature of the allegations made and the nature of the investigation required, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. From the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners, no ground and circumstance are made out which will perceive persuade Court to BA.6229/08 3 invoke the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that 8th accused was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as per order dated 10.9.2008 in Crl.M.C.No.1541/08 and hence, petitioners who are similarly placed also be granted anticipatory bail. On going through the order, it is seen that anticipatory bail was granted to the 8th accused on the ground that co-accused were granted regular bail. According to me, consideration for granting bail and anticipatory bail are different. Granting of regular bail alone is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, especially in a case of this nature. The incident happened as early as on 18.4.2008 and the petitioners, who have allegedly taken part in the assault have not been so far arrested, even after expiry of six months. Therefore, petitioners are 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.