IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2312 of 2010()
1. BASHEER.V,S/O.ALI,VYSYAN HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. JAFFER.V.K,S/O.MOIDUTTY,VADAKKEDATH
3. SAIFUDHEEN.T,S/O.IBRAHIM,THALIYIL HOUSE,
4. SULAIMAN.V,S/O.MOIDUTTY,VYSYAN HOUSE,
5. ISMAYIL.TK,S/O.MOOSA,THAMATHRIKANATH
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
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.2312 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 19th July, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Section 323, 324
and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According
to prosecution, on 24.3.2010 at about 8.45 p.m., petitioners
(accused nos.1 to 5), in furtherance of common intention,
assaulted defacto complainant by using stick, sword etc. and
thereby committed the various offences.
3. According to petitioners, they are innocent of the
allegations made. The defacto complainant has not sustained any
injuries. In fact, petitioners were assaulted by defacto
complainant and others, due to political animosity and on account
of political influence, a false case is foisted against petitioners.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that 5th accused in this case is already arrested and
hence, question of granting anticipatory bail to him does not
arise. Petitioners have not surrendered so far and the weapons of
offence could not be recovered. It is not correct to say that
BA NO. 2312/10 2
defacto complainant did not sustain any injury at all. There were
lacerated injuries on the head, near the eyes. There are other
injuries also on the chest. There was blurring of vision and
vomiting by the defacto complainant. He was referred to higher
hospital for better management.
5. On hearing both sides and on considering the
serious nature of the allegations made, the nature of the injury
sustained and the need for custodial interrogation and recovery of
weapon used, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail cannot be
granted to petitioners 1 to 4. As far as 5th accused is concerned,
since he is already arrested, anticipatory bail cannot be granted
to him also. This submission is recorded. Petitioners 1 to 4 are
bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. The
incident happened as early as on 24.3.2010. Hence, the following
order is passed :
(1) Petitioners 1 to 4 shall surrender before the
Investigating Officer and co-operate with the
investigation without any delay.
(2) No further application for anticipatory bail by
petitioners 1 to 4 in this crime will be
BA NO. 2312/10 3
entertained by this court hereafter.
(3) The prayer for anticipatory bail by petitioners 1
to 5 is rejected.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs