IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2793 of 2010()
1. CHALI @ RAFEEQUE.K.RASAK,S/O.SEETHI,
... Petitioner
2. KONGOLA JAIMON,S/O.ALEX,AGED 25 YEARS,
3. KONGOLA BAVA @ JAYESH,S/O.ALEX,
4. KONGOLA JOJO,S/O.ALEX,AGED 19 YEARS,
5. KONGOLA BABY SEBASTIAN,S/O.SEBASTIAN,
6. SANTHOSH,S/O.PAUL,AGED 30 YEARS,
Vs
1. S.H.O.ARALAM,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :15/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 2793 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 341, 323 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
restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using knife
and thereby committed the above offences. The incident
happened on 11.3.2010 at about 7 P.M.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that offence
under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is included only
with a view to harass petitioner. As per the allegations in the
F.I. Statement, petitioners aimed a stab at the neck of de
facto complainant but hit fell on the back side of the de facto
complainant. Offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal
Code is not involved, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that is the second application for anticipatory bail.
B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 2
The earlier application was dismissed as per Annexure-2 order.
The weapon is not so far recovered. On the facts of the case this
is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. A knife was used for
commission of the offence and injury of considerable nature are
sustained by de facto complainant on the forehead as well as
near the spine which is 6 cm deep. The injury on the forehead
was sutured also.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is the second
application for anticipatory bail. As per annexure A2 order, the
earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as early as
on 16.04.2010. It was observed in the said order by another
bench of this court as follows:
“Having regard to the facts and
circumstances involved in the case, especially
the gravity of the offences involved and the
allegations, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners as the same
will adversely affect the investigation in the
above crime which is now in progress. It is
B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 3
also relevant to note the grievous nature of
the injures sustained by the victim and the
weapons used to inflict such injuries which
are also relevant facts which persuade this
Court to decline anticipatory bail in favour of
the petitioners.
In the result, I find no reason to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioners by
exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. There fore, there is no
merit in this petition and accordingly, the
same is dismissed.”
6. I do not find any reason to come to a different view. The
incident happened more than 4 months back and the
investigation is in stand still, since the petitioners have not co-
operated with the investigation. Considering the serious nature
of the allegations made also, I am of opinion that anticipatory
bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. Petitioners are
B.A. No. 2793 / 2010 4
bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence,
the following order is passed:
1. Petitioners shall surrender before the
investigating officer forthwith and co-
operate with the investigation without any
delay.
2. No further application for anticipatory bail
by petitioners in this crime will be
entertained in this court hereafter.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln