IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3378 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.64/2009 OF KUDEYAMALA POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. SABU AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.SEBASTAIN, NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 2. JOHNSON AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.MATHEW THALAYINAKANDATHIL HOUSE, NELLIKUTTY P.O.KANNUR DT. 3. JOY AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.CHERIYAN PERUMALI (HOUSE),NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 4. SHEJU AGED 29 YEARS,S/O.KURIAKOSE, CHAMPAPPALLIL HOUSE, NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 5. SAJI AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.CHAKKO, MUNDAMAKKAL (HOUSE) NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 6. SEVANANDAN @ BIJU,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN,KELOTH (HOUSE) NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 7. MANU AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.SEBASTIAN, MELEMURIYIL HOUSE,NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. 8. BYJU AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS, POUVATHUPARAMBIL (HOUSE) NELLIKUTTY P.O.KANNUR DT. 9. BABY AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.POULOSE, KOTTAPURATH (HOUSE),NELLIKUTTY P.O. KANNUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUDEYAMALA POLICE STATION,REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------- B.A. No. 3378 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 O R D E R The petitioners are accused in Crime 64/2009 of Kudeyamala Police Station, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147,148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed for anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that there was conflict between two political groups and petitioners are actual victims and this counter case is launched at the instance of the opposite political party and even though, offence under Section 326 of Indian Penal Code is alleged, ingredients of the offence under Section 326 is not there and petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition and they be granted anticipatory bail. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the incident fracture was caused and therefore, offence under Section 326 is involved. It is submitted that petitioners are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail and they be directed B.A. No. 3378 /2009 Page numbers to surrender and apply for regular bail. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor, I do not think that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised. The petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the concerned magistrate and apply for regular bail. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner sought direction to the magistrate to consider the application for bail on the date of surrender, I find no reason to give any such direction as I do not believe that magistrate is unaware of the provisions of law or the decision of this Court or that Magistrate will not act in accordance with law. The Bail Application is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE scm