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. 8056 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.718/08 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. RATHEESH, S/O. LATE RAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, OODAKULATHIN KARAYIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERI MURI, CHEGANNUR VILLAGE. 2. RAJEEV, S/O. LATE RAJAN, AGED 29 YEARS, OODAKULATHIN, KARAYIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERI MURI, CHEGANNUR VILLAGE. 3. SAJEEV, S/O. LATE RAJAN, AGED 27 YEARS, OODAKULATHIN KARAYIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERI MURI, CHEGANNUR VILLAGE. 4. SUSEELA, W/O. LATE RAJAN, AGED 50 YEARS, OODAKULATHIN, KARAYIL VEEDU, KEEZHCHERI MURI, CHEGANNUR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.R.SUNIL KUMAR, SMT.A.SALINI LAL. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 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: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 8056 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 12th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 308, 324 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 4 in furtherance of common intention assaulted de facto complainant and four others on 15-12-2008 at 5.30 p.m. on the road lying in front of the house of de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners were assaulted by de facto complainant and others and they sustained injuries. The incident happened inside the house of petitioners and even ladies in the house sustained injuries and they were hospitalized. Annexure-A1 is the certificate issued from the hospital. As against 4th accused, there is only an allegation that she put chilly powder and hence, at least she may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 1st accused used a chopper, accused 2 and 3 used iron rod and 4th accused used chilly power. De facto complainant and four others sustained injury in the incident and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Weapons are to be recovered. Wound certificate produced as Annexure-A1 would BA 8056/08 -2- not show that accused sustained injuries. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on the mere allegation that incident occurred in the petitioners' house and that petitioners sustained injury, etc. anticipatory bail cannot be granted, since there is no materials to support these allegations. Though Annexure-A1 certificate issued from the hospital is produced, it does not show that 4th accused sustained any injury or any of the accused sustained injury. 6. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made and nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Crime was registered as early as on 16-12-2008 and petitioners are bound to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is 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. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by BA 8056/08 -3- this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.