IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 5803 of 2008() 1. RAVI, S/O.KRISHNAN, AMBALADATH HOUSE, ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE ... 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. ORDER
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
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.
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.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.