IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7533 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.282/08 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SABU, S/O USHA, VETTAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THIRUVADIMUKKU, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEEPU, S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY, PUHEN VEEDU, THIRUVADIMUKKU, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VINEETH, S/O BABU, VISHNU VILAS, THIRUVADIMUKKU, THIRUVALLAM. 4. RATHEESH @ PAKRU, S/O RAVI,LALITHA NIVAS THIRUVADIMUKKU, MELE THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE ---------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7533 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, peitioners (accused 1 to 4) assaulted de facto complainant and attempted to commit culpable homicide. A chopper was used for committing the offence. The incident occurred on 3.11.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that third petitioner had filed a complaint against de facto complainant and the latter was pressuring him to withdraw the complaint. Third petitioner was not willing for the same and hence, a false complaint is registered against petitioners. It is pointed out that one of the persons mentioned by name in the FIR was subsequently deleted from the array of accused, which itself would indicate the falsity in the allegations. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that even if the allegations are accepted, it is only the third petitioner, who has used the chopper and hence, atleast others may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. He submitted that it is not correct to say that it is a false complaint. De facto complainant sustained an injury on the head and weapon is to be recovered. Petitioners are required for interrogation and investigation and they have not BA.7533/08 2 surrendered before the investigating officer or before the court. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I do not think that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The weapon is also to be recovered. At this stage of investigation, without sufficient materials, I am not impressed by the arguments that this is absolutely a false case. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate Court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. 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.