IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4042 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.195/10 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR) .................................... PETITIONER (S): ------------------------ 1. UMMER, S/O.MOIDU , AGED 33 YEARS PUTHENPURA HOUSE, IRIKKUR PO IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. UMMER @ UMMERKUTTY, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, KINAKUL HOUSE, PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO,IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VAHID, S/O.MEMI, AGED 23 YEARS KINAKUL HOUSE,PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO, IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SIYAD, S/O.KASIM, AGED 28 YEARS A.P.HOUSE, PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO, IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- STATE THROUGH S.H.O IRIKKUR POLICE STATION , KANNUR DT REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.4042 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2010 O R D E R This is the second petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 308, 143, 147, 148, 341, 324 and 427 r/w 149 of IPC. According to Prosecution, petitioners (five in number) along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and pelted stones at the defacto complainant, after wrongfully restraining him. They destroyed the car and voluntarily caused hurt to him by using stones and thereby committed various offences. The incident happened on 27.4.2010 between 11.30 am and 12 pm. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that two of the petitioners had also sustained injury. Wound certificates are annexure 1 and 2. But at the time of hearing of the earlier application for anticipatory bail he could not produce the same. Hence the said petition was dismissed. There is also a case and a counter case in respect of the same incident. In the counter case, first accused was granted anticipatory bail on the ground that he B.A. No.4042/10 2 sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that defacto complainant and another persons were sustained very serious injuries. Those facts were considered by this court in the earlier application for anticipatory bail and this court has already come to a conclusion that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is the second application for anticipatory bail. On considering the rival contentions, I have already held in annexure – A7 order that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. A perusal of annexure A3 would show that the accused in this case did not have any external injury, but there are only complaints of pain. Annexure- A2 reveals that one of the accused had sustained a sutured lacerated wound on the right parietal region. 6. On the facts and circumstances of this case mere sustaining of injury by one of the petitioners by itself may not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Defacto complainant and another person sustained dental fracture, rupture of tympanic membrane etc. The incident happened as early as on 27.4.2010 and investigation is stand still that petitioner could not be B.A. No.4042/10 3 arrested so far. Petitioners have not made out any sufficient ground to get anticipatory bail. 7. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation. However, it is made clear that dismissal of anticipatory bail application may not be a ground to refuse regular bail. Consideration for anticipatory bail and regular bail are different. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.