IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7069 of 2008()
1. SOMAN, AGED 57YEARS, S/O.PURUSHAN,
... Petitioner
2. VIJAYAN, AGED 53 YEARS,
3. O.D. RAJU, AGED 42 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No.7069 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
324, 308 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, petitioners along with other accused, formed into an
unlawful assembly and followed de facto complainant in an auto
rickshaw while the former was proceeding in a motorbike. They
intercepted the motorcycle and assaulted de facto complainant
using weapons like concrete piece, sword stick, cycle chain etc. De
facto complainant sustained four injuries, which include two cut
injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the
allegations made against petitioners are false. Accused 1 and 2 are
brothers. Their brother, one Jayakumar and de facto complainant
were having some dispute between each other regarding a way.
The police came to the said place on a particular day and because
of this, a quarrel ensued between them and some incident between
them. Accused 1 and 2 are not residing anywhere near their
brother’s house or the house of de facto complainant. It is also
submitted that the injuries sustained are only minor injuries. Hence,
BA.7069/08 2
anticipatory bail may be granted, since offence under Section 308
IPC is not involved, it is submitted.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that sword stick, concrete piece and cycle
chain were used by accused to assault de facto complainant.
Accused were forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and
chasing de facto complainant while he was riding a motorcycle.
They had intercepted the motorcycle and assaulted de facto
complainant. It was a calculated attack. De facto complainant had
sustained as many as four injuries which include two cut injuries on
the forearm. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted. It is also pointed out that recovery of weapons allegedly
used for the offence is to be recovered, for which petitioners’
interrogation will be required.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions
made by learned Public Prosecutor. Petitioners’ interrogation is
required for effecting recovery of weapons used for the offence. If
anticipatory bail is granted, this chance will be lost. Considering the
nature of offence and the nature of allegations made and the nature
of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to
grant anticipatory bail. The crime was committed as early as on
BA.7069/08 3
9.10.2008 and petitioners are fleeing from law. The investigation is
in a standstill. Only fourth accused could be arrested so far.
Therefore, petitioners (accused 1 to 3) are
directed to surrender before the investigating
officer and co-operate with the investigation.
Whether they surrender or not, police is at liberty to
arrest them and proceed in accordance with law.
With this direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.