IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6287 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.804/2008 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED 4 TO 7 ---------------------------------- 1. SANTHEEP, S/O. GOPI, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUMBAI, THOTTIPAL.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. MANOJ, S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, MANUSSERY HOUSE, CHATTIPARABU.P.O, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. BIJU, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, PAYIE HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR. 4. KANNAN, S/O. BASKARAN, VADAKKUTTU HOUSE, PORUTHUSSERY, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6287 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148 323, 326, 308 and 120(B) read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, defacto complainant and 7th accused had some quarrel between each other. The defacto complainant had allegedly attacked the 7th accused earlier. Out of this enmity, A7 arranged A1 to A6 to assault the defacto complainant and accordingly, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant by using weapons like iron rod etc. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are A4 to A7. Even according to prosecution, accused no.7 was not present at the scene. He is implicated only with the aid of offence under Section 120(B) IPC, at a later stage. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant knows the accused, since there was a mediation at the police station BA No.6287/08 2 between the two parties and he had acquaintance with the accused previously. But, in the FI statement, the names are not mentioned. Therefore, petitioners are falsely implicated subsequently, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that all the accused, who participated in the incident (A1 to A6), were carrying a weapons. Those are not recovered. Though the incident occurred as early as on 29.8.2008, petitioners could not be arrested so far. It is true that the parties came to the police station and there was a mediation. But, it may not be a reason for the defacto complainant to know the names of all the accused. The absence of mentioning the names of the accused may not be sufficient to exonerate them from the offence. In the FI statement itself, it is mentioned that the persons who attacked the defacto complainant were seen by him from the police station. He had only acquaintance by sight and not by name. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in an offence of this nature. They are also required for interrogation BA No.6287/08 3 and recovery of the weapons allegedly used by A4 to A6. The incident occurred on 29.8.2008 and the investigation could not be proceeded with for want of arrest of the petitioners. Hence, petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer or before the Magistrate Court concerned and co-operate with the investigation within seven days from today. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl