IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 27TH MARCH 2008 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1854 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.723/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM CRIME NO.50/08 OF THE CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. ALIN ANDREWS, KOIVILA VEEDU, KOIVILA THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 2. BINU ANDREWS, KOIVILA VEEDU, KOIVILA THEKKUMBHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE CHAVARA THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 1854 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of March, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 2. They are the two named accused who along with 7 other unnamed persons, face allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Secs.452 and 324 read with Sec.149 of the IPC and the provisions of the Arms Act. The alleged incident took place on 17/2/08. There was an alleged earlier incident between the de facto complainant and the 1st accused. On account of animosity arising there from, the accused persons armed with dangerous weapons are alleged to have gone to the house of the de facto complainant, trespassed into the same and attacked the de facto complainant with a sword stick. His mother and wife, who were available in the house and who tried to intervene, B.A. No. 1854 of 2008 -: 2 :- were also assaulted. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. There was an earlier incident and because of animosity arising from such incident, totally false allegations are being raised, it is submitted. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the available indications clearly point to the complicity of the petitioner. The earlier incident, even if true, can only strengthen the case of motive alleged by the de facto complainant. In any view of the matter, the petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners must be directed to resort to the normal and usual course of surrendering before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 5. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, B.A. No. 1854 of 2008 -: 3 :- after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge