IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 54 of 2009() --------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.920/2008 OF KANUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. P.O.DHARMARAJAN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 44, OLACHERY HOUSE, P.O.TALAP, KANNUR. 2. V.K.MANOJ, S/O KUNHAMBU, AGED 38 YEARS, CHEVIDAN CHALIL, P.O.KAPPAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.H.O., KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 54 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of January,2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 326, 427 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) in furtherance of common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to de facto complainant. He was beaten up with hands by both the accused, and with iron rod by 1st accused. This happened in the house of de facto complainant where a reception was going on in connection with a marriage. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a counter case, which was registered on the basis of a statement given by 2nd petitioner against de facto complainant and because of this, they are implicated in this case. The 1st petitioner is a handicapped person and he cannot commit any offence, as alleged. It is also submitted that in a house where reception was being conducted in connection with a marriage, it is improbable that any person would carry an iron rod. BA 54/09 -2- 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that iron rod was used by 1st accused and fracture was also caused to de facto complainant. The 1st accused is not physically unfit to beat a person with hands. It is also submitted that there was a marriage function and many persons witnessed the incident. Their statements were also recorded in the case diary. Though there is a counter case, only minor injuries were sustained 2nd petitioner. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners will be required for recovery of weapon used, for which, interrogation of the petitioners will be required. The mere existence of a counter case may not by itself be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. The crime was registered as early as on 23-11-2008 and petitioners could not be arrested so far. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether they BA 54/09 -3- 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.