IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 202 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------- CRMP.5288/2008 of SPL. COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.572/08 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS : ----------------- 1. RAJESH.O.S, S/O SUKUMARAN,OLOPPILLIYIL HOUSE,VALARA.P.O,IDUKKI DIST. 2. VIJESH,S/O SUKUMARAN,PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE,MACHPLAVU, MANNAMKANDOM. 3. RENJITH, M ALIYEKKAL HOUSE,POONJARKANDOM MANNAMKANDOM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.I.OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE STATION). ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. FOR ADDL.R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.202 OF 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 308 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, defacto complainant, who is a TV reporter, along with the media crew were travelling in a Maruti car. They had parked the car by the side of a road while a Scorpio car came there and stopped nearyby. When the persons from the Scorpio car was about to open the door, the people in Maruti car told him not to open, since it is likely to hit the window of the car. This was not to the liking of the persons, who were in the Scorpio car, who are petitioners herein. After this, defacto complainant and crew went to the local TV channel office and when they were coming out petitioners went to them and questioned them and also assaulted using spatula, soda bottle and knife. The defacto complainant sustained injuries and people gathered and intervened and hence, he escaped from being murdered. B.A.No.202 of 2009 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made and they do not know anything about the incident. As per the prosecution case itself, there is no premeditation and hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for defacto complainant are heard. Both of them opposed this bail application and submitted that the defacto complainant sustained a serious injury on the forehead. The injury was sutured and there were 8 stitches. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the incident happened for a simple reason, and petitioners came back with intention to commit the offence. The incident did not occur on the spur of a moment, but petitioners being offended, they came back and attacked defacto complainant. A knife was also used and the person who intervened snatched away the knife by force. Otherwise, it would have ended in some serious calamities. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the nature of investigation required and B.A.No.202 of 2009 3 the manner in which it is done, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The knife used for the offence has not been seized so far. Petitioners are required for effective recovery of the weapon used for the offence. The crime was registered as early as on 08.12.2008 and petitioners have not surrendered before any court or police. Hence, Petitioners are directed to surrender 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. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac