IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 156 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.1760/2008 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: -------------------- 1. LALU, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, NELLIPILLY PARAMBU, KAITHARAM P.O., N. PARAVUR. 2. SHAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, NELLIPILLY PARMBU, KAITHARAM P.O, N. PARAVUR. 3. SUNNU @ SANEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, NELLIPILLY PARAMBU, KAITHARAM P.O., N. PARAVUR. 4. BINEESH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. VISWAMBARAN, KARIKAPPILLY, VALLUVALLY, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 156 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324 , 452 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners have committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted him and also the inmates of the house by using soda bottle and inflicted injuries on 30.11.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 to 4, were invited to the house of de facto complainant to settle a previous dispute. In the course of the settlement talks, some altercation occurred and a complaint is filed against petitioners, incorporating offence under Section 452 IPC. There was no trespass as alleged, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners have committed the offence for compelling de facto complainant to settle another dispute. For this purpose, they have committed house trespass. They are required for investigation and interrogation. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that an order may not be passed directing petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer because this is only an anticipatory bail application and the court may allow it or dismiss, but no direction may be issued to surrender. [B.A.No.156/2009] 2 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is not only the de facto complainant but the inmates of the house were also allegedly assaulted by petitioners in furtherance of common intention. The crime was registered as early as on 30.11.2008 and petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation. Being the accused in this case, petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation, as a law abiding citizen. They have not done so. Therefore, having found that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is the duty of the court to direct petitioner to abide law and surrender before the investigating officer. If no such order is passed, it is likely that petitioners may abscond and investigation will be in a stand still. If the petitioners have no intention to abscond, it is not understood why a request is made not to issue a direction to surrender. Therefore, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.