IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 73 of 2009() --------------------------- CRIME NO. 229/2008 OF SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S)/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------------------ ARUN, S/O. GIREESHAN AGED 22 YEARS VALLIKANDAM, SIRYA NAGAR, POWDIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SREEKARIYAM POLICE STATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 73 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 13th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 447, 341, 323 and 308 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, in furtherance of common intention petitioner (A3) along with three others allegedly trespassed into the property of de facto complainant, wrongfully restrained and assaulted him with a chopper and inflicted injuries with intention to commit culpable homicide. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and the allegations made are against 1st accused. Petitioner is 3rd accused and he may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this petition and submitted that the incident occurred in the midnight of 12-9- 2008 and 1st accused was in the habit of jumping over the compound wall of de facto complainant's property for the purpose of going to a lady's house during untimely hours. This was objected to by de facto complainant, which was not to the liking of 1st accused. Therefore, he along with others committed the offences. Weapon is also to be recovered and no accused is BA 73/09 -2- so far arrested. Hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that in the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 13-9-2008 and recovery of the weapon could not be effected so far. Petitioner is not available for investigation. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the police 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.