IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1733 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.207/10 OF EZHUKONE POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. (S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED-A1 TO 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEESH S/O. GOPINATHAN,KUZHIVILA VEEDU KARICKAL MURI, PAVITHESWARAM VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJESH, S/O. RAGHAVAN,RAJESH BHAVAN, KARICKAL MURI, PAVITHESWARAM VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. VAVAN, S/O. THAMPI,CHARUVILA VEEDU, KARICKAL MURI, PAVITHESWARAM VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1733 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 28th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 24.2.2010, at about 10 p.m., petitioners (A1 to A3) along with some identifiable persons criminally trespassed into the office of a cashew factory under the Kerala Cashew Development Corporation and assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries on him using knife, bricks etc. Defacto complainant was working in the factory. The motive was that defacto complainant questioned first accused when he passed some comments about his wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. There is a dispute between the members of the CITU and defacto complainant. Petitioners are CPI(M) workers. 4. This petition is opposed. Petitioners are required for recovery of the weapons. On hearing both sides and BA NO.1733/10 2 considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not persuaded to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. Petitioners are required for the purpose of recovery of weapons also. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs