IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6065 of 2008()
1. NAVAS.O.K, 29 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ATTOTH MUHAMMED @ MUHAMMED ALI,
3. NOUFAL PAYYANA KOTTUMMAL, 20 YEARS,
4. PARACHALIL SIRAJ, 24 YEARS,
5. SHAPPULLA PARAMBIL YOUSUS,
6. BASHEER, 36 YEARS,
7. SIRAJ.P.M, 20 YEARS,
8. RASHEED.O.K, 22 YEARS,
9. NOUFAL.M.A, 25 YEARS,
10. YOUSUF.A, 23 YEARS,
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A. No. 6065 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 13th day of October,2008
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under sections 143, 147, 148,
341, 294(b) and 308 read with section 149 IPC. According to
prosecution, petitioners formed themselves into an unlawful
assembly, assaulted defacto-complainant and another, by using
iron rod etc.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
offence under section 308 IPC is included, with a view to harass
petitioners. The injuries sustained are minor in nature and there
are only contusions and abrasions, though as per the allegation,
iron rods were used by a group of persons. All other offences are
bailable and hence anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioners,
it is submitted.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the
allegations, iron rods were used for the offence and defacto-
complainant and another person were also attacked. But, it is
conceded that the nature of injuries sustained are contusions and
abrasions. It is also submitted that the only non bailable offence
involved is under section 308 IPC. The incident occurred as early
as on 27-8-2008. Only some of the accused were arrested. The
weapons allegedly used by petitioners are not so far recovered
BA 6065 /08 -2-
and therefore, petitioners are required for interrogation, it is
submitted by learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that considering the nature
of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail. But for the purpose of bail, it can be treated by the police
and court that offence under section 308 IPC is not involved. It is
made clear that it is only for the purpose of bail that offence
under section 308 has been so treated as excluded.
6. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioners are required
for interrogation and recovery of weapons.
Hence, petitioners are directed to appear
before the Investigating Officer within seven days
from today and co-operate with the investigation.
With this direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
mn.