IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 649 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.42/2009 OF MALA POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCSUED 2 TO 4 ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.A. PHALGUNAN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN, TCHANADAN HOUSE, ANNALOOR.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. P.T. ANIL, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. THILAKAN, PULLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, ANNALOOR.P.O. 3. T.M. SUMOD KRISHNAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, THUMBUR.P.O, KOTTANALOOR. BY ADV. MR.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.649 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. and 27 of Arms Act. According to prosecution, due to previous enimity, accused nos. 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him using “urumi” and stick. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first accused was arrested and he is already released on bail. Petitioners are accused nos. 2 to 4. No specific allegation is made against petitioners. In fact, the defacto complainant and 25 others attacked petitioners on the same day at same time and petitioners sustained injuries and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application and submitted that all the accused assaulted the defacto complainant. It is not correct to say that no specific overt act is alleged against him. “Urumi” and stick were also used for the B.A.No.649 of 2009 2 offences. In the nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There is no evidence to support the counter allegations, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I find that there is only bare assertion that petitioners were assaulted and sustained injury at the hands of the defacto complainant and others on the same day. Though a specific defence contention is raised it remains only as a bare assertion, without any supporting materials. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Granting of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. to a co-accused is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail to other co-accused. The crime is registered on 21.01.2009 and petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate court concerned without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to B.A.No.649 of 2009 3 arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac