IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 226 of 2008()
1. RAJESH, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
2. MANIKANDAN, AGED 37 YEARS,
3. BINU, S/O.MANIYAN, MADATHUVULAKAM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :16/01/2008
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No. 226 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are
accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in a crime registered, inter alia, under
Section 308 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The allegation under Section 326
I.P.C. has also been included subsequently after questioning the
doctor at the hospital, where the injured was being treated. On
account of prior animosity, at 8.30 p.m. on 10.12.2007 the
accused persons had allegedly assaulted the sister of the defacto
complainant. The defacto complainant intervened and he was
attacked with dangerous weapons. Accused 1 and 2 indulged in
the specific overt act. Accused 3, 4 and 5 allegedly restrained
him and facilitated infliction of injuries by accused 1 and 2.
The defacto complainant suffered a fracture of the skull bone.
Dangerous weapons were allegedly used for infliction of the
injuries. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend
imminent arrest.
B.A.No. 226 of 2008
2
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are absolutely innocent. They have not indulged in any
overt act. There is no grievance that they have wielded any weapon.
They had, even going by the allegations, wrongfully restrained the
defacto complainant and facilitated infliction of injuries by accused 1
and 2. There was an earlier incident on 9.11.2007, which operated as
the motive. Subsequently also crimes have been registered, wherein
the accused persons are the victims and the party of the defacto
complainant are the accused. In any view of the matter, the petitioners
do not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. They may
be granted anticipatory bail, prays the learned counsel.
3. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits
that the victim has suffered very serious injuries. The allegations are
raised with the help of Section 149 I.P.C. It is not necessary at this
stage to search for specific overt acts of all the accused persons. The
petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Their role in facilitating
commission of the offence by the co-accused is stated in the F.I.
B.A.No. 226 of 2008
3
statement. In these circumstances the petitioners may not be granted
anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.
4. I have considered all the relevant inputs. I find merit in the
opposition by the learned Prosecutor. I am in agreement with the
learned Prosecutor that this is a fit case where the petitioners must
surrender before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having
jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course.
5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may
however hasten to observe that if the petitioners appear before the
learned Magistrate and apply for bail after giving sufficient prior
notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned
Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with
law and expeditiously.
(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm