IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2993 of 2010() -------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2010 IN CRMP.1121/2010 IN CRMP.1098/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.273/2010 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER/ IST ACCUSED ----------------------- M.RAJU,S/O.MURUGHAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KORATHU HOUSE,THENARI P.O.,ELAPPULLY,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASABA POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2993 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A1) along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons committed rioting and assaulted de facto complainant and thereby committed the various offences. The incident happened on 17.03.2010 at about 8 P.M. 3. Petitioner is the first accused. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this incident arose out of a political issue. The petitioner is a worker in the BJP and injured is a worker of CPI(M). The allegation is that petitioner beat de facto complainant with an iron rod, but the only injury sustained is loss of one tooth and hence the allegation is highly improbable. Accused nos. 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court and second accused is already released on bail, it is submitted. B.A. No. 2993 / 2010 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained not only loss of one tooth, but his another tooth was broken and there was also loosening of a yet another tooth. The weapon used for the offence is not recovered so far. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner's interrogation is required for the purpose of an effective investigation. The weapon of offence allegedly used by petitioner is to be recovered. It is not known on what ground accused nos. 2 to 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln