IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6516 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.358/08 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. AMEERALI K.P. KUTTICHI P.O., UDUMPUMTHALA, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASRKODE DISTRICT. 2. YAHIYA, THEKKEVALAPPU, UDUMPUMTHALA P.O. SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASARKODE DISTRICT. 3. N.MUNEER, UDUMBUMTHALA, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASARKODE DISTRICT. 4. SAVAD, S/O.ABOOBACKER, K.K.P. NEAR BUSSTAND, THRIKARIPUR. 5. IMTHIYAS N, VADAKKEKOVVAL, P.O.THRIKARIPUR, KASARKODE DISTRICT. 6. KUTTY RASHEED @ ABDUL RASHEED B., BEERICHERY, P.O. THRIKARIPUR, KASARKODE DISTRICT. 7. NASEER, B/O. KOLLI SHAREEF, AYITY, MACHIKKAD, P.O. EDACHAKAI, PADNE, KASARKODE DISTRICT. 8. MOOSA, BAKKIRIMUKKU, MAIDANI P.O. ELEMBACHI, SOUTH THRIKARIPUR, KASARKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPD. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6516 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 427 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 8.10.2008 at about 8 PM, petitioners, due to prior enmity, in furtherance of a common intention committed house trespass into the office of the CPI(M) and destroyed window glasses and committed mischief. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 6. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused 1 to 3 and 6 are already arrested and petitioners 7 and 8 are not arrayed as accused in the crime. 4. There is no representation for petitioners consecutively for the third time. On considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am not satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners 7 and 8 being not accused in the crime, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to them. Since accused 2, 3 and 6 are already arrested, prayer for anticipatory bail by them is infructuous. Petitioners 4 and 5 are required for investigation. BA.6516/08 2 Hence, petitioners 4 and 5 are directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co- operate with the investigation without any delay. Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to arrest them and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.