IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 202 of 2009()
1. RAJESH.O.S, S/O SUKUMARAN,OLOPPILLIYIL
... Petitioner
2. VIJESH,S/O SUKUMARAN,PUTHENTHARAYIL
3. RENJITH, M ALIYEKKAL HOUSE,POONJARKANDOM
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
For Respondent :SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/01/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------
B.A. No.202 OF 2009
----------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences under Sections 294(b), 324,
506(ii), 308 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution,
defacto complainant, who is a TV reporter, along with the
media crew were travelling in a Maruti car. They had parked
the car by the side of a road while a Scorpio car came there
and stopped nearyby. When the persons from the Scorpio car
was about to open the door, the people in Maruti car told him
not to open, since it is likely to hit the window of the car. This
was not to the liking of the persons, who were in the Scorpio
car, who are petitioners herein. After this, defacto
complainant and crew went to the local TV channel office and
when they were coming out petitioners went to them and
questioned them and also assaulted using spatula, soda bottle
and knife. The defacto complainant sustained injuries and
people gathered and intervened and hence, he escaped from
being murdered.
B.A.No.202 of 2009
2
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made and
they do not know anything about the incident. As per the
prosecution case itself, there is no premeditation and hence,
petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
defacto complainant are heard. Both of them opposed this bail
application and submitted that the defacto complainant
sustained a serious injury on the forehead. The injury was
sutured and there were 8 stitches. It is also submitted by
learned Public Prosecutor that the incident happened for a
simple reason, and petitioners came back with intention to
commit the offence. The incident did not occur on the spur of a
moment, but petitioners being offended, they came back and
attacked defacto complainant. A knife was also used and the
person who intervened snatched away the knife by force.
Otherwise, it would have ended in some serious calamities. It
is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of
the allegations made, the nature of investigation required and
B.A.No.202 of 2009
3
the manner in which it is done, I am satisfied that it is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. The knife used for the offence
has not been seized so far. Petitioners are required for
effective recovery of the weapon used for the offence. The
crime was registered as early as on 08.12.2008 and petitioners
have not surrendered before any court or police.
Hence, Petitioners are directed to surrender
before the Investigating Officer without any
delay and co-operate with the investigation.
Whether they surrender or not, police is at
liberty to arrest them and proceed in
accordance with law.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac