IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2560 of 2010()
1. ANIMON,S/O.,TERRANCE,
... Petitioner
2. SHIHAN, S/O.SHIHANI,
3. SHIYAD, S/O.ISMAIL KUNJU,
4. RIYAZ,S/O.ABDUL RAHIM,MADATHARA, AKKOLIL
5. FAIZAL, S/O.SAINALBDEEN,
6. NOWFAL, S/O.SAINALBDEEN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :19/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.2560 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 19th July, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
According to prosecution, petitioners(accused nos.1 to 6) formed
themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto
complainant on 16.3.2010 at about 10.30 a.m., by using sword,
stick etc. and inflicted injuries on him and committed the various
offences stated above. The incident happened in the festival
ground near a temple.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in
respect of the same incident which occurred on the same day, at
the same place, three crimes are registered, including this crime.
Crime No.299/10 was registered against defacto complainant in
this case and others. Crime No.300/10 was registered against
petitioners and others and some of the accused were granted
anticipatory bail in that case, as per order dated 27.5.2010.
Hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is
BA NO. 2560/10 2
submitted.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that it is true that three crimes were
registered on the same day. In the present case, defacto
complainant sustained injuries at the hands of petitioners. Stick
and sword were used for inflicting injuries on him. Crime
No.299/10 was registered on the basis of a complaint made by an
injured. However, the crime in which the anticipatory bail was
granted, offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code was
the main offence. The complaint in that case was lodged by the
President of the festival committee, stating that articles in the
temple premises were damaged by the accused.
5. There is no ground to grant anticipatory bail to
petitioners. They are required for the purpose of custodial
interrogation and recovery of the weapons. It is also pointed out
that petitioners 1 and 2 are accused nos.1 and 2, but third
accused in the crime is already arrested. It is further pointed out
that it cannot be confirmed at this stage whether petitioners 3 to
6 are involved in this case or not. The investigation is going on.
The persons who are actually involved in the crime have to be
BA NO. 2560/10 3
identified by the witnesses.
6. On hearing both sides, I find that the allegations
made against petitioners 1 and 2 are serious in nature. The
defacto complainant and another person had sustained injuries.
Multiple lacerated wounds were inflicted on the scalp, eye lid etc.
Another person also sustained lacerated wounds of considerable
nature, in the incident. The swords and sticks, which were used
for the offences are to be recovered, for which custodial
interrogation of petitioners will be necessary.
7. The mere registration of three crimes, in respect of
an incident which occurred in the same place by itself, cannot be
made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners 1 and 2
have not made out any ground to get anticipatory bail. They are
bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. The
incident happened as early as on 16.3.2010. But, it appears that
other petitioners cannot be proceeded against at this stage, since
the identity of accused is to be confirmed though witnesses.
Hence, the following order is passed :
(1) Accused nos.1 and 2 shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer without any delay and co-
BA NO. 2560/10 4
operate with the investigation.
(2) No further application for anticipatory bail by
accused nos.1 and 2 in this crime will be
entertained by this Court hereafter.
(3) Since petitioners 3 to 6 are not confirmed to be
the accused in this case, anticipatory bail
cannot be granted to them, as there is no basis
for apprehension of arrest. The prayer for
anticipatory bail by petitioners 3 to 6 is
rejected.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs