IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5333 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.424/08 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. VANNATHAN BALAN, S/O.KOTTAN, RESIDING AT KELOTH, P.O.HARIPURAM, PULLUR VILLAGE. 2. BABU, S/O.GOVINDAN MANIYANI, RESIDING AT POLLAKKADE, P.O.HARIPURAM, PULLUR VILLAGE. 3. RAGHAVAN, S/O.MUTTILKANNAN, RESIDING AT PUTHIYAKANDAM, AJANUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ THE STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5333 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 3, 5 and 6 and others, got into the bus from different places, in which the de facto complainant was travelling and they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, second petitioner, who is the 5th accused, armed with an iron rod, assaulted the de facto complainant, after forcibly removing the de facto complainant from the bus. He sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the offence involved is at the maximum only under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, but with a view to harass the petitioners, who are BJP workers, offence under Section 308 IPC is deliberately included for implicating the petitioners in a non-bailable offence. The intention is to harass the petitioners, it is submitted. It was also pointed out that in other two similar matters, where the BJP workers were involved, this court had observed in the orders in anticipatory bail applications that the case has to be treated as if offence under Section 308 or 307 IPC is not included for the purpose of bail (vide BA.Nos.4625 and 5118 of 2008). This case is also one in such series BA.5333/08 2 and hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, or a similar observation may be made, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the second petitioner (fifth accused) used an iron rod and inflicted an injury on the forehead of the de facto complainant. De facto complainant also sustained injury on the arm and he was put on a sling. There are 15 accused altogether and only 7 accused are identified. Others are yet to be identified. At this juncture, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation. The crime is committed as early as on 23.7.2008, and the petitioners were not available for arrest, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, taking into consideration the manner in which the offence is committed, the nature of injuries sustained and the area where the injuries were inflicted etc., I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The fact that the petitioners are BJP workers by itself will not be sufficient to make an observation as in other cases regarding the involvement of offence under Section 308 IPC. The facts of each case are different. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.