IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7742 of 2008() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6465/2008 Dated 21/10/2008 CRIME NO.260/08 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED 1 TO 5 ----------------------------- 1. SURENDRAN.K.N, S/O. NARAYANAN, KALLARAKKUZHIYIL, KARIKKODU.P.O, PERUVA. 2. K.V.PATHROSE, S/O.VARKEY, KALAYITHUMKALAYIL, ARUNNOOTTIMANGALAM, KADUTHURUTHY. 3. SUDHAN.P.J, PATTUNIRAPPEL, KUNNAPPALLY, PERUVA. 4. BENNY, S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KOYIKKAL HOUSE, KARIKKODU. BY ADV. MR.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ STATE --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 7742 & 7744 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petitions for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 452, 323, 324, 427 and 308 IPC. According to prosecution, accused nos. 1 and 2 went to the toddy shop in the morning and they were offended, since there was some delay in supply of toddy. There was an altercation between the de facto complainant and those persons. Thereafter, they went out stating that they would come soon. Accused nos. 1 and 2 came to the toddy shop with 20 others and committed various offences by assaulting the de facto complainant with soda bottle and causing damage to the articles kept in the toddy shop etc. 3. Petitioners in B.A.No.7742 of 2008 are accused nos. 2 to 5 and petitioner in B.A.No.7744 of 2008 is accused no.1. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no overt act is alleged against accused nos. 2 to 5 and what is alleged in the first information statement is that some identifiable persons came to the shop and committed certain offences, but the names of [B.A.Nos.7742 & 7744/08] 2 accused nos. 2 to 5 are not stated in the first information statement. No serious injuries are sustained except contusions. The weapon used was soda bottle. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused had filed an application for anticipatory bail and it was dismissed as per Annexure-I order on 21.10.2008 in B.A.No.6465 of 2008. Considering the nature of allegations made, this Court already found that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the crime is registered as early as on 25.8.2008, petitioners could not be arrested so far inspite of lapse of more than 5 months. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that though the names of accused nos. 2 to 5 are not mentioned in the first information statement, it is revealed in investigation that they have also committed offence. They damaged the articles in the shop and they joined A1 and A2 to commit the offences. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that as far as first accused is concerned, I have considered the contentions raised by him and came to a finding that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, taking into account the serious nature of allegations made. If any order is passed allowing anticipatory [B.A.Nos.7742 & 7744/08] 3 bail, it will amount to review of the order which is not permissible under Section 362 of Cr.P.C. 6. As far as accused no.2 to 5 are concerned, they also stand more or less in the same footing. It is not correct to say that they have committed any offence. They have allegedly acted as members of unlawful assembly and caused damage to articles kept in the shop and assaulted de facto complainant also and it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to them. Though more than 5 months have elapsed, petitioners are not available for investigation. Hence, 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 petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.Nos.7742 & 7744/08] 4