IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7859 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 809/2008 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION) ........... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED-A1 TO 3: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MOOSA KUNJU, S/O. BADARUDHEEN, AREEKKAKALIL VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. NIZAR, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM, MARANAGATTU MELATHIL, EZHIYAM P.O, ANCHAL , KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SIDDIQUE, S/O BASHEER, VARUVILAKATH VEEDU, CHERUKULAM P.O, KADAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7859 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323, 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 to 3, in furtherance of common intention committed house trespass into the house of the defacto complainant's sister and assaulted the defacto complainant and other inmates of the house. Stick was used for commission of the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a false case is registered against petitioners due to political enimity. Accused belonged to CPI whereas, the defacto complainant is a worker of CPI(M). It is also submitted that the defacto complainant had enimity towards the accused, since first accused gave evidence against him in another crime, in which the defacto complainant was an accused. Because of this enimity, the defacto complainant and others assaulted petitioners on the same day, on 12.12.2008 at about 8.30 p.m. B.A.No.7859 of 2008 2 and a crime was registered as crime No.814/08 against the defacto complainant and others. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the incident happened due to previous enimity. The parties are at loggerheads due to other reasons and the incident in this case happened on 12.12.2008 at 7.15 p.m. The incident in crime No.814/08 occurred at 8.30 p.m., which is subsequent to the incident in this case. The stick is not so far recovered and petitioners are required for interrogation. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the nature of the investigation required, which includes the recovery of the weapon, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstance is made out to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The crime is registered as early as on 12.12.2008 and petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they B.A.No.7859 of 2008 3 surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac