IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 465 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.192 OF 2008 OF KANJIRAKULAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- RATHEESH,S/O.DAVID, IRAIMANTHURA PURAYIDOM,PULLUVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS P.PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 465 of 209 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, assaulted de facto complainant and committed various offences in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant had assaulted petitioner and others and he sustained head injury. A crime was also registered on the basis of the statement given by accused as Crime no.198 of 2008. Hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had hit the de facto complainant with a stone on his face and a teeth was broken and thereby committed the offence. The de facto complainant intervened when the petitioner picked up a quarrel with his elder brother. [B.A.No.465/2009] 2 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a counter-case is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner has not pointed out any special circumstance to invoke the provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is bound to co- operate with the investigation and surrender before the investigating officer. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him at any time and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.