IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3968 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.462/2010 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION. (S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SHIRAS, AGED 28, S/O.SALIM THOTTUNKAL PURAYIDOM, ZAXHARIA WARD,ALAPPUZHA. 2. SANEER .D, AGED 21,S/O.DEERAR THAIPARAMBIL ALISSERY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SAJEE.S, AGED 29, S/O.SAMAD, THAIPARAMBU, LAJANATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SUKHESH .S, AGED 30,S/O.SUGUNAN THEEKETHOPPIL,LAJANATH WARD,,ALAPPUZHA. 5. RIYAS, AGED 29, S/O.ASHRAF KARAMMODU PURAYIDOM, KACHARIA, WARD,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3968 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 27th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 28.5.2010 at about 9 p.m., petitioners(A1 to A5) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant and others, by using sword stick and reapers and inflicted injuries on him and thereby committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was some dispute between two groups of children while playing cricket. Thereafter, when one boy was returning home, defacto complainant and others attacked him, asking why he had come to the locality etc. He was beaten up with iron rod and criminally intimidated, by showing a knife at his neck. When he raised hue and cry, people of the locality came running and rescued him. In the course of this incident, some injury is sustained by defacto complainant and another, but petitioners are BA NO. 3968/10 2 absolutely innocent, it is submitted. The boy had given a complaint and copy of the complaint is produced along with this bail application. 4. The defacto complainant was improving his version, while giving the first information statement, it is argued. The wound certificate will show that only a knife was used for commission of the offence, but, in the first information statement, it was stated that sword stick and reaper were used. It is also pointed out that fracture is caused only to a finger and no other serious injuries are sustained by defacto complainant or other person. In such circumstances, if petitioners are remanded, they will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it appears from first information statement that some incident had happened involving children. According to defacto complainant, he had attacked some children, but the said incident happened at 5 p.m. on the date of occurrence. But, the incident in this case occurred at 9 p.m. As a retaliation to the incident at 5 p.m., petitioners had formed themselves formed into an unlawful assembly and attacked defacto complainant and others in the night at about 9 p.m. Two persons were injured in BA NO. 3968/10 3 the incident. This is not a case where petitioners acted in self defence, when the boy was seen attacked. But this is a case of retaliation. Petitioners are required for the purpose of recovery of the weapons and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and documents produced by petitioners, it appears that a boy was allegedly beaten up by defacto complainant and others on 28.5.2010 at about 5 p.m. But, after about 4 hours, the incident in this case happened at about 9 p.m. and as per the allegations in the first information statement, the attack was made on defacto complainant and another, questioning the defacto complainant about the attack made on the boy. 7. It is also seen from the wound certificates that within 20-30 minutes of the incident, defacto complainant and the other injured had reached the hospital and they were examined and they sustained cut injury and fracture to the meta-carpel. An incised wound of considerable measurement was also sustained by one of the injured. If such injuries are sustained at 5 p.m. or 6 p.m., there is no reason why the injured went to hospital after 3½- 4 hours of the incident. Petitioners were not able to establish or BA NO. 3968/10 4 probabilise that the injured in this case sustained injuries in the incident, which occurred at about 5-6 p.m. In such circumstances, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the need for interrogation, recovery of the material objects etc., I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs