IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3495 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.400 OF 2010 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------- SUNESH, S/O.SREEDHARAN, VADAKKOTTU CHARINJATHIL, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.B.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3495 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 326, 354 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused nos. 1 to 10 formed into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the assembly, first accused beat de facto complainant with reeper and others by stick. Accused nos.5 to 10 also attacked two ladies who had come to intervene in the matter by beating with hands. De facto complainant sustained a fracture, while the hit made by first accused was wielded off. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a political clash between two groups. In the clash, the de facto complainant sustained some injures. But the petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. A counter case was also registered in connection with the same incident and others are also injured. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant who is a woman, was attacked by accused nos. 1 to 10. Reepers were used for the offence. Petitioner also used reeper and inflicted fracture to the finger of the de facto complainant. Two ladies who had come to rescue de facto complainant were also B.A. No. 3495 of 2010 2 attacked by accused nos. 5 to 10. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and recovery of weapon used by him. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and recovery. Though a counter allegation is made that there was a political clash etc., there is not circumstances or materials on record to substantiate the same. The incident happened as early as on 16.04.2010 and petitioner is bound to surrender before the police and co-operate with the investigation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner, considering the serious nature of the allegations made. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln