IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3469 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.733/2010 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DIST. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 7 -------------------------------------------------- 1. REJI PAPPACHEN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAMULACKAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MURALY, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.GOPINATHAPILLAI, YAMUNA BHAVAN, EDAMULACKAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JAYAN, S/O.GOPINATHA PILLAI, AGED 38 YEARS, KALAMANDIRAM, EDAMULACKAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. SAJI, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BABU, MUNDAPLAYIKAL VEEDU, EDAMULACKAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. BINU, GED 36 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, AMBILY BHAVAN, EDAMULACKAL P.O., EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. SAJEEV, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SASIDHARAN ACHARI, SHINY MANDHIRAM, KOTTUKKAL P.O., ITTIARA P.O., KOTTARAKARA TALUK. 7. JOMON, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.JOY, PARAVILA POUTHEN VEEDU, MALAPEROOR, MANJAPARA P.O., AYOOR, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMLAINANT, STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3469 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 29th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 12.9.2008 at about 9 a.m., petitioners(accused nos.1 to 7) due to previous enmity, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks, wrongfully restrained defacto complainant, beat him and inflicted injuries on him. He was also punched with hands. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant used to harass the daughter of second accused, who is studying in 10th Standard and create nuisance to the girl. No injury is inflicted on defacto complainant. Even according to prosecution, second and third accused are the persons who used sticks and the other accused have not used any sticks, it is submitted. It is further submitted that 7th accused has only driven the autorikshaw, in which the accused have come to the place, but defacto complainant himself stated in the F.I. statement that 7th accused has not committed any offence. BA NO.3469/10 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was a group attack on defacto complainant and sticks were used and those are not recovered so far. Two fractures are caused to defacto complainant. It is not correct to say that he was not injured. It is also submitted that as per a direction of this Court, petitioners 2 and 3 had appeared before Investigating Officer and they were questioned. On questioning, it is revealed that there was only one instance, where defacto complainant tried to enter the house of second accused, after removing a tile, but there are no instances, where defacto complainant made any physical advance against second accused's daughter. The defacto complainant is aged 20 years. It is a calculated attack on defacto complainant, armed with sticks etc. It is pointed out that defacto complainant was wrongfully restrained from a particular place and beaten up and he was removed to another place in an autorikshaw and again he was beaten up. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the serious nature of the injury sustained by defacto complainant, I am satisfied that this is not a BA NO.3469/10 3 fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the assailants. However, taking into consideration the statement of defacto complainant that 7th accused has not done anything against him, I think that anticipatory bail can be granted to 7th accused. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioners 1 to 6 is rejected. (2) The 7th accused shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (3) On such surrender, 7th accused shall be released on bail, on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) He shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. (ii) In case 7th accused is involved in any offence of similar nature, his bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs