IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6825 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.164/08 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 6 ---------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, KUTHYATHOTTIL HOUSE,P.O.CHITTARIKKAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 2. JEESON GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, THURITHIPALLIYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHITTARIKKAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 3. SUNNY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, P.O. CHITTARIKKAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 4. SHANY K. THOMAS, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.K.T.THOMAS, KALAYATHANGAL HOUSE, P.O.CHITTARIKKAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 5. SIJO.V.J., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, VAZHUTHANAPALLIYIL HOUSE, P.O.PALAVAYAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. 6. JAMES P.M. AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, PANTHAMAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KANNIVAYAL, KASARAGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6825 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 397 read with section 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 12.10.2008 at about 2 p.m. petitioners (A1 to A6) formed into an unlawful assembly and committed various offences. The de facto complainant and two other persons were assaulted by using iron rod, reapers etc. and they sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that on the alleged date, time and place, 2nd petitioner (A2) was assaulted by de facto complainant and others, and he sustained injuries also. The accused are workers of INTUC, whereas de facto complainant is the local committee Secretary of CPI(M). Therefore, on the statement given by 2nd accused, when a crime was registered as Crime no.156 of 2008, main offence included was under Section 324 IPC alone whereas, in respect of the same incident, when the de facto complainant, who is the local [B.A.No.6825/08] 2 committee Secretary, gave a statement to the police, a crime was registered, incorporating offence under various Sections including offence under Section 397 of IPC. Later, Section 397 IPC was deleted, and instead, section 427 and 307 IPC were included. 4. No serious injuries were sustained by de facto complainant and others, but due to political influence, a crime incorporating serious offences has been registered and ff petitioners are arrested, it is likely that they will be harassed and they will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. This case is an off-shoot of a strike organized by INTUC workers, because of which, the CITU workers were agitated and they were filing false complaint against workers of INTUC, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per order in B.A.No.6860 of 2008 dated 7.11.2008 anticipatory bail was granted to persons who belong to other group in respect of the incident occurred on 12.10.2008 at 1 p.m. 6. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case in which iron rod, reaper etc. were used and three persons were injured. De facto complainant sustained two contusions and swelling on the face etc. and another person sustained deep cut wound on the right thigh measuring 10 cm. Yet another person suffered contusion and abrasion on the elbow. On the other hand, in crime no.156/2008, the injuries sustained by de facto complainant is only skin abrasion and laceration and oedma. Tenderness is also noted. The incident happened while the de facto complainant and other office bearers of CITU were proceeding to the toddy shop on hearing that an incident happened on the same day at [B.A.No.6825/08] 3 about 2 p.m. On their way, petitioners were coming in a jeep and jeep was stopped and de facto complainant and others were assaulted by accused. Weapons are to be seized and interrogation of accused is necessary. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides, it appears that persons on both sides received injuries. While de facto complainant and two others were injured in this case which include a deep cut injury, the second accused sustained only skin abrasion etc. From the facts and circumstances pointed out it is difficult, at this stage, to hold that de facto complainant were the aggressors. Petitioners were also not able to substantiate any circumstance which would persuade this Court to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a counter case is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The weapons allegedly used are to be recovered. Interrogation of accused will be essential for effecting the recovery. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. 8. On going through order dated 7.11.2008 in B.A.no.6860 of 2008 I find that specific reasons were assigned in the order for granting anticipatory bail to accused in that case. But in this case, circumstances are different and I do not find any special reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. The incident occurred as early as on 12.10.2008 and the petitioners are required for interrogation. They could not be arrested so far. Therefore, petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate court or the investigating officer and [B.A.No.6825/08] 4 co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, the police is at liberty to arrest them in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.