IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6267 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.558/2008 OF CHENGANOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:- ------------------------------ ANEESH THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS S/O.PROF.DR.(LATE ) P.A.THOMAS VELIYATHANNICKAL HOUSE,ERAVIPEROOR P.O. THIRUVALLA, DISTRICT PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION THIRUVALLA, DISTRICT PATHANAMTHITTA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 6267 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 323, 294b, 379 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner and de facto complainant are co-brothers and while de facto complainant was proceeding in a motor car, petitioner and three others came in a vehicle and blocked the way. Thereafter, de facto complainant was wrongfully restrained, abused and assaulted. Petitioner is the 1st accused in the crime. A mobile phone belonging to de facto complainant was taken away from him. The incident happened on 27-9-2008 at 7.30 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a case and counter case. Petitioner had filed a complaint before the Magistrate Court alleging that he was beaten up by de facto complainant. He was hospitalized also, since he sustained injuries in that incident. It is also submitted that petitioner has no intention to commit any theft. There was some dispute with BA 6267/08 -2- respect to property and no incident as alleged had taken place. Petitioner was also admitted in the hospital, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case diary reveals that petitioner assaulted de facto complainant by blocking his way and thereafter, mobile phone was also taken away. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of articles stolen and hence, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail in an offence of this nature. Even if the contentions raised by petitioner are accepted, it only reveals that there was assault by both sides. But, there is nothing to show that petitioner is entitled to any benefit much less, anticipatory bail. In a case where both sides assaulted each other, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail. Recovery of the article is also to be effected in this case, for which petitioner's interrogation is necessary. The incident happened as early as on 27-9-2008 and petitioner was not available for investigation. He has not surrendered before Magistrate Court also. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days BA 6267/08 -3- from today and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police will be at liberty to arrest him, at any time. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.