IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 534 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRMP.75/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.8/2009 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- RAGHAVAN, ANPATHIL HOUSE, VAIKAPRAYAR KARA, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 534 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 307 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with two others in furtherance of common intention assaulted de facto complainant and attempted to commit murder. Stick was used for the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this is a politically motivated case. Petitioner is falsely implicated because of political reasons. The motive alleged is flimsy. It was in respect of cutting of a plantation tree. Petitioner has not committed any offence and no injury was caused to de facto complainant. Offence under section 307 IPC is not attracted and hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner shouted to kill de facto complainant and 2nd accused beat de facto complainant with a stick, accused 1 and 3, thereafter, assaulted de facto complainant . Petitioner is required for interrogation and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is only bare assertion that petitioner is falsely implicated due to political BA 534/09 -2- reasons. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained injuries in the assault and it is not a case where there is no injury at all. Considering the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. However, the contention whether section 307 is involved or not can be raised in an application for bail, if any, filed under section 437 Cr.P.C. I make it clear that considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are different from considerations for grant of bail under section 437 Cr.P.C. Rejection of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. may not be a ground to reject bail application under section 437 Cr.P.C. Crime was registered as early as on 1-1-2009 and petitioner is required for 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 534/09 -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.