IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 1397 of 2010()
1. ABHILASH, S/O.ASOKAN
... Petitioner
2. SHYAM SHOBH
3. PRAJEESH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN
4. RAJESH,S/O.SUKUMARAN
5. PRADEESH, S/O.KELU
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :30/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.1397 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 30th July, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 447 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. According
to prosecution, on 26.1.2010, at about 1.35 a.m., petitioners (A1
to A5) and 10 other accused formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly and hurled bomb at the house of defacto complainant,
and it fell on the jeep and caused damage to the jeep.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners are workers of C.P.I.(M) and defacto complainant is a
worker of the B.J.P. Because of the political enmity, defacto
complainant himself threw a cracker and falsely fabricated a case
against petitioners. The substance involved in this case is not an
explosive substance. It is merely a cracker, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the jeep was damaged and as per the allegations,
the accused themselves hurled bomb at the house. The bonnet
BA NO. 1397/10 2
and the glasses of the jeep were broken.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering the
serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a
fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Consideration for grant of bail
and anticipatory bail is different. The incident happened as early
as in January, 2010, on a republic day and seven months have
already elapsed. The investigation is in a standstill, for want of
arrest of petitioners, who are the main offenders. There is no
justification in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners, since it is
likely to affect the investigation adversely. Petitioners are bound
to surrender and co-operate with the investigation.
No further application for anticipatory bail by
petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this
court hereafter.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs