IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6832 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.397/08 OF EAST KALLADA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. SUNU S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, NADEKIZHAKKATHIL, KODUVILA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SADHUSEELAN , AGED 34 YEARS S/O.VISWANATHAN, DEVI VILASAM,KODUVILA, EAST KALLADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE EAST KALLADA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6832 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) in furtherance of common intention, due to previous enmity, assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries on him. A1 stabbed him with a knife on the forehead and deep injury was caused, A2 beat him etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that this is a falsely foisted case due to political vendetta. Defacto complainant and petitioners are workers of rival political parties. Actually, first petitioner and one Lal were having a quarrel. When the defacto complainant came in between, defacto complainant fell on the rock and sustained injuries. But, a false case is foisted against petitioners, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that second accused was arrested on the date of filing of this petition itself and hence, grant of anticipatory bail to him does not arise. BA No. 6832 /2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that allegations made against petitioners are serious in nature. According to defacto complainant, he was stabbed with a knife by the first accused and a deep injury was sustained on the forehead. The incident occurred at 6.30 p.m. on 26.9.2008 and the injured was hospitalised on the same day on 8.15 p.m. and allegation of assault was made at the earliest opportunity, at the time of examination by the doctor. The weapon used is to be recovered and hence, petitioner is required for interrogation. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I find that considering the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for investigation and interrogation for the purpose of recovery of weapon used. Though learned counsel for petitioners would submit that another incident had happened involving petitioners and another person and that the defacto complainant had fallen down etc., absolutely no materials or circumstance was pointed out to substantiate such contentions. There are only bare assertions from the side of petitioners. BA No. 6832 /2008 3 6. There is no special circumstance which persuades this Court to grant anticipatory bail to first accused. Second accused being arrested, no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to him. First accused is directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Whether, he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl