IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1 of 2009(A) ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 396/2008 OF ONNUKAL POLICE STATION) ................ PETITIONERS 1 - 5/ ACCUSED 1 - 5: ----------------------------------------------- 1. HASAINAR, 25 YEARS, S/O.KAREEM, NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NAGARAMUDY KARA, OONNUKAL P.O., 2. ASSALAM, AGED 24 YEARS, AS/O.ALIAS, CHETTUKUDIYIL, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NAGARAMUDY KARA, OONNUKAL PO. 3. ASHRAF @ PULSAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, THUTHUPILLIYIL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NAGARAMUDY KARA, OONUKAL PO. 4. SUNEER, 19 YEARS, S/O.MYDEEN, AGAVALAPPIL HOUSE,NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NAGARAMUDY KARA, OONNUKAL PO. 5. NAZEER, S/O.KAREEM, AGED 27 YEARS, NEDUMPILLIL HOUSE, NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NAGARAMUDY KARA, OONNUKAL PO., BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM. RESPONDENT/ STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OONNUKAL POLICE STATION. (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.396/2008 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION), REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 1 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 324 and 326 read with section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, a “ganamela” was arranged by C.I.T.U. on 16-12-2008 at about 1.30 a.m. When ganamela was going on, some people caused obstruction to the same and de facto complainant requested them not to obstruct the function. This infuriated those persons and they attacked de facto complainant and he sustained serious injuries. A crime was registered against those persons. Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in the crime. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that 6th accused was assaulted during ganamela, when he danced at 10.30 p.m. along with others. He sustained injuries and he was hospitalized. Thereafter, a crime was registered against petitioner and 6th accused. They are totally innocent of the allegations made. The present crime was registered only because de facto complainant is a worker of C.I.T.U. and under his political influence. It is also submitted that another crime was registered in respect of the injuries sustained by the 6th accused in the assault. BA 1/09 -2- 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused have committed various offences and de facto complainant also sustained grievous injuries. He sustained a fracture on the right knee, etc. and he had also other injuries. No complaint was made by 6th accused and hence, no crime was registered. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that 6th accused is not able to go to the police station to lodge a complaint because he apprehends arrest. He was arrested on his discharge from the hospital and he was released on bail. Therefore, petitioners alone are filing this anticipatory bail application. 7. On hearing both sides and on perusing the certificate issued in respect of the alleged injuries sustained by the 6th accused, I find that 6th accused was attacked and he was examined at the St. Joseph's Hospital at about 10.50 p.m. and he had lacerated wound at left side of frontal region of scalp, which was sutured and he was discharged. It is also seen from the certificate issued by the doctor that history of alleged cause of injury was “fall”. 8. On considering the arguments advanced on both sides BA 1/09 -3- and on perusing the case diary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners, especially in the light of the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that the weapons used for the offence are not recovered so far and petitioners are required for interrogation and recovery. The incident occurred as early as on 16-12-2008 and petitioners are required for investigation. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.