IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7924 of 2008() ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.780/2008 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACUSED 1 AND 2: --------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNI, S/O.DEVARAJAN, KOCHUPOIKAYIL VEEDU, PANIYIL, CHATHANNOOR KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAILENDRAN @ MONKUTTAN, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, KOCHUPOIKAYIL VEEDU, PANIYIL, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7924 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 308, 324 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) along with two others, in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to de facto complainant using stick and sharp edged weapon. Accused 1 and 2 used the weapons and the incident happened on 8-11-2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant and people of the locality had some quarrel and petitioners who are residing in the locality are falsely implicated. De facto complainant sustained only minor injuries. Petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. Hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners are named in the First Information Statement itself. Specific overt act was alleged against them. Weapons are used to inflict the injuries. Wound certificate shows that de facto complainant BA 7924/08 -2- sustained serious injuries on his head. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, considering the serious nature of allegations made. Petitioners are required for recovery of the weapon and for which purpose, custodial interrogation will be required. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Crime is registered as early as on 8-11-2008 and petitioners are bound to surrender. 6. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) 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. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant BA 7924/08 -3- anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.