IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3468 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.261/2010 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED --------------------- SUBRAMANIAN @ CHAMY, S/O.KUTTAN, AGED32 YEARS, PARANGATT HOUSE, PINDIMANA VILLAGE, CHELAD KARA, NADODIPALAM BHAGOM. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION (INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO. 261/2010) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3468 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 04.04.2010 at about 10 P.M., petitioner(A1) along with few others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like swords and attacked de facto complainant and his friends, inflicted injuries on them and committed the various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant is a worker of a particular association and there was some quarrel between the two groups of the said association. But petitioner is unnecessarily implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. He used sword against de facto complainant and others and inflicted injuries on the de facto complainant and other B.A. No. 3468 / 2010 2 accused used sword for the commission of the offences. De facto complainant and two others sustained serious injuries. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for effecting the recovery of the weapon used by him. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary and the wound certificates, I am satisfied that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary to effect the recovery of the weapons allegedly used for the offence. Considering the facts of the case and nature of the injuries sustained also, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln