IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7752 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 302/08 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION) .............. PETITIONERS/ A1 TO A3: ------------------------------------ 1. VINOD KUMAR .R, AGE 29 (AI), S/O. RAVEENDRAN NAIR, RAVEENDRA SADANAM, ANAYOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. UDAYAKUMAR K, AGE 34, (A2),S/O. KALIPILLA, MUNDUPLAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ANAVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. AJEESH S.R., AGE 28 (A3), S/O. SADASIVAN NAIR, VIDYA VIHAR, KORANAMKODE, KOTTAIKKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, MR.SHAJIN S.HAMEED. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLARADA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------- B.A. No.7752 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 149, 323, 341, 427 and 379 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, on 11.11.2008 at about 7 p.m., petitioners (accused nos.1 to 3) formed into an unlawful assembly along with other accused and wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him and also caused mischief by destroying crops. Rs.2,000/- was also stolen. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the only non bailable offence involved is under Section 379 of I.P.C. It was incorporated only subsequent to the filing of the F.I.R. No serious injuries are sustained by the defacto complainant. The crime is registered due to political rivalry. It is a clash by D.Y.F.I. and R.S.S. Therefore anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor conceded that offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. was incorporated only B.A.No.7752 of 2008 2 subsequently. In the F.I.Statement, it is mentioned that the money is lost, but it not clearly mentioned that it was stolen. This allegation is made only at the time of questioning. No serious injuries are also sustained and no weapon is used and the money allegedly stolen is not recovered. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, rejection of anticipatory bail cannot be made a ground to refuse bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Petitioners may surrender before the police or the Magistrate court concerned and seek bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., in which event, the petition for bail will be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations made by this court on merit, since considerations for anticipatory bail and bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. are different. Hence, the following order is passed : i) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, B.A.No.7752 of 2008 3 police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac