IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3501 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.306/2008 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 3: --------------------------------- 1. BIJU, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 35 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL, POONKAVU, ALAPPUZHA. 2. VINOJ, S/O.KUNJACHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, ALUNKAL, POONKAVU, ALAPPUZHA. 3. BYJU, S/O.PAUL, AGED 23 YEARS, THOPPIL VEEDU, POONKAVU, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3501 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, due to previous enmity the petitioners attacked the defacto-complainant while he was travelling in a motor bike on 19-5-2008 at about 11 p.m. First accused on wrongfully restrained the defacto-complainant and inflicted a stab injury on the back of his head with a knife. The other accused also participated in the crime and beat the defacto-complainant with iron rods. 3. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners' presence is required for the recovery of the weapon and for custodial interrogation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident did not occurr, as alleged. It was an attack on the petitioners by the other group by trespassing into the 1st petitioner's house and this case is falsely foisted against them as a counter blast. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any materials in support of the contentions raised. There is nothing to show that petitioners sustained injury and that there was an attack on them, etc. BA 3501/08 -2- 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the alleged weapon is only knife, which is used for domestic purpose, but the police has deliberately included an offence under Arms Act also, which shows that the police is against them. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner is an important person in the locality and in case, he is taken into custody and harassed by the police, it will result in irreparable injury. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioners could not substantiate their contentions that the case is foisted only as a counter blast to an incident which occurred in the 1st petitioner's house. I am satisfied that the petitioners' presence is essential for the purpose of recovery of weapon and for custodial interrogation. Hence, it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.