IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 52 of 2009() --------------------------- (CRIME NO.1206/08 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ A2 TO 6 ---------------------------------------- 1. VIPIN.I.C, AGED 29, S/O.CLEETUS, ILLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU. 2. LIPIN GEORGE, AGED 21,S/O.AUGUSTINE, PAZHAMADATHIL HOUSE, MARADU. 3. MANU MOHAN, AGED 20,S/O.MOHANAN.C.M, PUTTILILTHARA, MARADU. 4. SHAJI AGED 33,S/O.SURENDRAN, MANULLIL HOUSE, MARADU. 5. BABU.M.D, AGED 36, S/O.DIVAKARA MENON, MANNIKKIRI HOUSE, MARADU. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, (CRIME 1206/08)PANANGADU POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 52 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 452, 427 and 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 8.12.2008 at about 8.45 p.m. accused persons (A1 to A8) committed house trespass into the shed where de facto complainant and others were residing and armed with deadly weapons formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted de facto complainant and others because the de facto complainant refused to give money whenever accused demanded. De facto complainant sustained grievous injury also. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was some dispute between the migrant labourers, who were engaged in the construction work of a nearby building, regarding the use of open area for sanitation purposes. There were more than 100 persons. Such persons were publicly using such open area. Therefore, there was some agitation in respect of this and some local people assaulted de facto complainant and others in [B.A.NO.52/2009] 2 connection with this dispute, but petitioners are falsely implicated in this case. The first accused, against whom there was specific allegation of inflicting injury, was already released on bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. No such allegations are made against petitioners and hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant and others are workers of West Bengal and they were engaged in construction work. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused nos. 3 and 7 respectively and petitioners 4 and 5 are accused nos. 5 and 4 respectively. Petitioner no.3 is not an accused in this case. As per the allegations, A1 to A8 committed various offences as members of unlawful assembly and even fracture was caused to de facto complainant by using weapons like a reaper, First accused used a reaper and others assaulted de facto complainant and inflicted injuries. In the nature of allegations, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the incident happened because the de facto complainant and others belong to a different State and accused were insisting that they must pay some money to them. Since they refused to make such payment, they were assaulted. [B.A.NO.52/2009] 3 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Though first accused alone used weapon, others have gathered as members of unlawful assembly, their names are shown in the first information statement itself. No special circumstance is pointed out to invoke the provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The 3rd accused is not an accused and hence, there is no apprehension of arrest. Hence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to him. Petitioners are bound to surrender. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer without delay 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 the petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.