Ravi vs The State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
Ravi vs The State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2008




Bail Appl..No. 5803 of 2008()

                      ...  Petitioner


                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :23/09/2008

 O R D E R
                                K. HEMA, J.

                   Bail Appl.No. 5803 of 2008
         Dated this the 22nd           day of September, 2008.


Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. According to prosecution, the petitioner along with

other persons allegedly formed into an unlawful assembly and

assaulted the de facto complainant and others and caused

grievous injuries etc. The petitioner is the first accused.

3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the

police conducted a raid in the toddy shop where the de facto

complainant was working as salesman. There was sale of spirit

from the toddy shop and there was public protest against this.

Even after the raid, the business in the toddy shop was continued

and hence the public in the locality gathered in front of the toddy

shop and there was some altercation and some incident occurred.

Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that specific overt acts were alleged against the

[B.A.No.5803/08] 2

petitioner, who is the first accused herein. As per the allegations

in the first information statement, the de facto complainant is a

salesman in a toddy shop and it was made to be closed forcibly

by the intervention of the petitioner and others on 17.6.2008 in

the afternoon. In the evening at about 5 p.m. the petitioner and

others again came to the toddy shop to see that the shop was

closed. A motor cycle belonging to one Ramachandran was

pushed down, while he resisted the same. The accused then

wrongfully restrained Ramachandran and A1 hit him with a

brick. He was also kicked when he fell down.

5. The said Ramachaandran was taken to the

verandha of the shop and made to lie there. The assailants

again approached Ramachandran, while de facto complainant

intervened and the first accused pelted stone on de facto

complainant and he sustained injury and Ramachandran was

again pulled down to the courtyard by the assailants and he

was again assaulted. People gathered there and the assailants

disbursed and the injured were taken to hospital. It is submitted

by learned Public Prosecutor that in an offence of this nature

anticipatory bail may not be granted. Fracture was caused to the

nasal bone in the incident and weapon was also used.

[B.A.No.5803/08] 3

6. On hearing both sides, the involvement of the petitioner,

who is the first accused, is clear from the first information

statement itself. Though assertions are made that incident did

not take place as alleged, on going through the case diary at this

stage, I cannot accept the bare assertions which are not

supported by any material. According to me, this is not a fit case

to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however,

submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the

Magistrate court or the investigating officer and a direction may

be issued to dispose of the bail application without delay.

8. If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating

officer within 7 days from today and is produced before

Magistrate court concerned and any bail application is filed, it

shall be disposed of in accordance with law on merit by learned

Magistrate as expeditiously as possible.

With this direction, petition is dismissed.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *