IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5806 of 2008(L)
1. LATHIF, AGED 49 YEARS, MARYATYH
... Petitioner
2. SHIBU, AGED 26 YEARS,
3. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 44 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 5806 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 6th day of October,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148,
326, 427, 452 read with section 149 IPC. A crime was registered
on the basis of First Information Statement given by defacto-
complainant alleging that three named persons and four
identifiable persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly
and trespassed into the house and assaulted defacto-complainant
with sword stick and he sustained a fracture. He was in his sister’s
house.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners are now implicated as accused in the crime.
Petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made.
Nothing is mentioned in the F.I.R. implicating petitioners in the
offence. There were only three persons who assaulted defacto-
complainant as per the First Information Statement, but
petitioners are now dragged into the crime, without any basis.
Therefore, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is
submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that accused 4 and 5 in the crime were arrested by the
police, and on questioning them it was revealed that petitioners 1
and 2 (they are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 7) had also
BA 5806 /08 -2-
trespassed into the house situated adjacent to the house from
where the defacto-complainant was attacked and they had also
broken window glasses and caused damage to the house. This
fact is evident from the First Information Statement itself, though
names of such accused are not mentioned.
5. It is revealed from investigation that accused 6 and 7
are also involved in the offence and weapons used for the offence
are to be recovered. However, it is pointed out that 3rd Petitioner
is not an accused in the crime and he is not wanted by the police
for arrest. This submission is recorded and hence no ground
exists to grant anticipatory bail to 3rd petitioner.
6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that as per the
materials available in the case diary, petitioners 1 and 2 are
involved in the offence and they are accused 6 and 7. Considering
the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that petitioners
will be required for arrest and interrogation. Recovery is also to
be effected and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail by the 3rd petitioner is
rejected, in the light of the submissions made by learned Public
Prosecutor.
This petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
BA 5806 /08 -3- mn.