IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6304 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.279/08 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. T.C. MUSTHAFA @ DADA MUSTHAFA, S/O MOIDU, AGED 45 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.C. SHAFEEQUE, S/O T.C. MUSTHAFA, AGED 20 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. T.C. SHAMER @ SAMER, S/O T.C. MUSTHAFA, AGED 19 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. T.C. SAFEER, S/O T.C. MUSTHAFA, AGED 22 YEARS, THEKKUMPATH HOUSE, IRIKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. SHAKKEEB, S/O HASHIM, AGED 20 YEARS, SIDDIQUE NAGER, IRIKKUR AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINT:- -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6304 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 5 in the crime. They allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant, after forming into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, they committed culpable homicide. Iron rod, wooden stick, knives were used by accused. All of them were carrying weapons. De facto complainant and another persons were also injured in the attack. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident did not occur, as alleged by the prosecution. On 1.9.2008 at 7 p.m. ,petitioners (A1 to A4) were travelling in an autorickshaw driven by 3rd accused. While so, de facto complainant and others waylaid the vehicle and all of them were dragged out of the vehicle and assaulted. They used iron rod, sword and wooden sticks. A1 to A4 were injured. A1 sustained [B.A.No.6304/08] 2 injury on tendons of the fingers and he was admitted in the hospital from 1.9.2008 to 30.9.2008 consequent to the complications following the injury. A2 and A3 also sustained injury and they were also hospitalised. A3 was hospitalised for 7 days. But, after the assault, a false complaint has been filed against them and another as accused no.5 on the basis of a complaint given by de facto complainant, it is submitted. Though a statement was given by first accused, no crime was registered by police. It is also pointed out that de facto complainant sustained only lacerated wounds even though as per the allegations chopper and knives were used. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that fist accused's wife filed a private complaint based on which crime no.307/2008 was registered against de facto complainant and 4 others under Section 326 of IPC etc. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the nature of allegations made, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail and that petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons allegedly used. It is also pointed out that the wound certificates will show that de facto complainant sustained lacerated wounds on the head, shoulder, leg and thigh. Another person was also injured and he [B.A.No.6304/08] 3 also has lacerated wounds on the face and knee. They were also hospitalised and hence it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the injury sustained by 2nd and 3rd accused are minor in nature being abrasion etc. 6. On hearing both sides and on the materials available, it appears prima facie that there was a clash between two groups. From the submissions made it is not clear as to who is the aggressor and who will be entitled for for the right of self-defence. At this stage, it is not possible to exonerate petitioners from the criminal liability on the grounds put forward. They are also required for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapons and hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, respondent is at liberty to arrest them at any them and proceed in accordance with law . With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.