IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7561 of 2008(A) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 154/08 OF THADIYITTAPARAMBU POLICE STATION) ............ PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.THANKAPPAN (A1), THOZHUTHUNGAL HOUSE, VILANGU P.O., KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 2. VIJEESH.T.V., S/O.VIJAYAN (A2) AGED 29 YEARS, THOZHUTHUNGAL HOUSE, VILANGU P.O. KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 3. MANOJ, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (A5) AGED 32 YEARS, ANIPILLY HOUSE, MALAYIDAMTHURUTH, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE. 4. JINES.T.MUSTHAFA (A8) S/O.MUSTHAFA, AGED 30 YEARS, THOOTHOPILLY HOUSE, CHELAKKULAM, PATTIMATTOM VILLAGE. BY ADV. MR.N.C.MOHANAN. RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7561 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 29th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners along with accused nos.3, 4, 6, 7 and 13 other persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using cycle chain, iron rod, sword, etc. and inflicted injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a counter case. De facto complainant in this case assaulted in a counter case where workers of A.I.T.U.C. attacked workers of C.I.T.U. and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a clash between two rival trade union workers and the injured sustained fracture to the knee bone. The weapons are to be recovered and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a counter case by itself is not sufficient to invoke section 438 BA 7561/2008 -2- Cr.P.C.. Weapons are to be recovered, for which interrogation of the accused will be essential. Crime was registered as early as on 6/8/2008 and petitioners had not so far made themselves available for investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay 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, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.