IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7212 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2741/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO. 560/2008 OF GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM PETITIONERS:- --------------------------------- 1. SHIJU C.S. AGED 26 YEARS,S/O. C.K. SASI, CHARAMKULANGARA HOUSE, PERUMBAIKAD P.O. 2. BINUMON T.T., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. THANKACHAN, THEVARKATTUSSERY HOUSE, PERUMBAIKAD P.O. 3. VINOD T.T. , AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. THANKACHAN, THEVARKATTUSSERY HOUSE, PERUMBAIKAD P.O. 4. RETHISH KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. V.P. SUKUMARAN,KARUNAKKALAYIL, PERUMBAIKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. BIJU K. SUKUMARAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. V.P. SUKUMARAN, KARUNAKKALAYIL, PERUMBAIKAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE S.I. OF POLICE, GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 7212 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 326 and 307 IPC. According to prosecution, while de facto complainant and another person were proceeding in a motor cycle, petitioners (A1 to A5) with two identifiable persons formed themselves in to an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, committed rioting and assaulted de facto complainant and another by using weapons like chopper, sword stick, iron rod, etc. Both of them sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused 2 to 5 were workers of D.Y.F.I. who resigned and therefore, they were falsely implicated in the crime. According to learned counsel for petitioners, actually petitioners were attacked. The motive alleged by prosecution in this case that “there was some quarrel with some persons while de facto complainant was working for the party”, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that it is highly improbable that incident of this nature BA 7212/08 -2- will take place on the motive alleged as above. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 1st accused used a chopper, 2nd accused used sword stick and accused 4 and 5 used iron rod and assaulted de facto complainant and another. De facto complainant sustained serious injuries on various parts of the body and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The intention was to commit murder of de facto complainant, it is pointed out. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that no special circumstances are pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners to invoke jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. The facts stated by learned counsel are not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. In fact, from the submissions made by him which are recorded as such, the defence or alleged improbability is not clear to me. Considering the nature of the allegations made and the nature of investigation that may be required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Weapons are to be recovered for which interrogation of petitioners will be required. The incident occurred as early as on 2-11-2008 and petitioners were not available for interrogation. BA 7212/08 -3- Therefore, petitioners surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any 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. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.