IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 2ND ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5906 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.966/2008 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,3 TO 6: ---------------------------------------- 1. BABU @ SURESH BABU, AGED 25 KAILUVILA VEEDU, VAYYAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. ANEESH, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 22, -DO-, -DO-. 3. VINOD, S/O.MURUKAN, -DO-, -DO-. 4. AJI, AGED 23, S/O.MONI, -DO-, -DO-. 5. BIJU, S/O.MURUKAN, -DO-, -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.R.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO. 966 OF 2008), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5906 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341 read with Section 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, the petitioners along with other accused formed into unlawful assembly and committed various offences and caused two fractures to the de facto complainant by beating with iron rod etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident allegedly occurred on 30.11.2007, but the crime was registered only on 16.8.2008 on the basis of a private complaint, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code for investigation. There is a long delay in lodging the complaint. This case is falsely foisted against the petitioners, since the first petitioner had lodged a complaint against the de facto complainant alleging various offences as crime no.920/2007. Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that iron rod was used for committing the offence and two [B.A.No.5906/08] 2 fractures were also caused to the de facto complainant. It is not correct to say that no incident occurred at all. The private complaint was dated 23.6.2008 and de facto complainant was in the hospital for a long period. Recovery of the weapon is not effected, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioners' interrogation will be required for the purpose of recovery and in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.