IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7961 of 2008()
1. ASHRAF.K.V., S/O.ABDURAHMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANJAY
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/02/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
B.A. No. 7961 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this the 13thday of February, 2009
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148,
153A, 332 read with section 149 IPC. According to
prosecution, about 50 persons formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and with intention to promote communal
hatred started shouting provocative slogans and when police
intervened to disperse the assembly, stones were pelted at them
and glass of the jeep was damaged.
3. Petitioner is the 4th accused in the crime. According to
petitioner, no injury is caused to any body. Petitioner is willing
to abide by any conditions. He will not tamper with evidence or
influence any witness and hence, anticipatory bail may be
granted. It is also his case that he is falsely implicated.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the facts
of this case this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Nature
of the allegations made against petitioner and others is very
serious.
5. On considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that
the allegations against petitioners are serious in nature and this
is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened
BA 7961/09 -2-
as early as on 1-11-2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so
far. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating
Officer or before the Court and co-operate with the investigation.
Hence, the following order is passed:-
1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
Investigating Officer without any delay and co-
operate with the investigation. Whether he
surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest
him and proceed in accordance with law.
2) No further application for anticipatory bail by
petitioner in this crime will be entertained by
this Court, since on the facts in this case, this
Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in
any subsequent anticipatory bail application will
amount to review, which is impermissible in law.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.