IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2993 of 2010()
1. M.RAJU,S/O.MURUGHAN, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :02/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 2993 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd 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,
323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A1) along with other
accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed
with deadly weapons committed rioting and assaulted de facto
complainant and thereby committed the various offences. The
incident happened on 17.03.2010 at about 8 P.M.
3. Petitioner is the first accused. Learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that this incident arose out of a political
issue. The petitioner is a worker in the BJP and injured is a
worker of CPI(M). The allegation is that petitioner beat de facto
complainant with an iron rod, but the only injury sustained is
loss of one tooth and hence the allegation is highly improbable.
Accused nos. 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail by the
Sessions Court and second accused is already released on bail, it
is submitted.
B.A. No. 2993 / 2010 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that de facto complainant sustained not only loss of
one tooth, but his another tooth was broken and there was also
loosening of a yet another tooth. The weapon used for the
offence is not recovered so far. Petitioner is required for
interrogation and recovery.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner’s
interrogation is required for the purpose of an effective
investigation. The weapon of offence allegedly used by petitioner
is to be recovered. It is not known on what ground accused nos.
2 to 3 to 5 were granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner has not
made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. I am satisfied
that on the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound
to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with
the investigation without any delay.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln