This is an application for anticipatory bail filed by accused 3 to 5 in Crime No.138/2014 of Mannancherry police station under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that, on 6.3.2014 at about 12.30 a.m, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and with the intention to commit culpable homicide of the defacto complainant, inflicted injuries on him and thereby all of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same and they have been implicated in the case. In fact, main accused 1 and 2 were arrested and they were released on bail. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. So he prayed for allowing the application.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is not over and they belong to quotation group and they have been hired by others for committing the offence.
5. Heard both sides.
6. It is seen from the records that a crime has been registered against the petitioners and others as Crime No.138/2014 by the Mannancherry police station on the basis of the statement given by the defacto complainant alleging the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the incident happened on 6.3.2014, the police could not arrest the petitioners so far. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested and thereafter released on bail as per the order of the Sessions Court. The petitioners moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. The same was dismissed by the Sessions Judge by Annexure-I order. On going through the order and also the case diary file, I do not find any reason to differ from the decision taken by the Additional Sessions Judge for not granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case of this nature. The petitioners can very well surrender before the concerned Magistrate court and move for regular bail. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that investigation is almost over. But it is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail especially when the Sessions Court had exercised the discretion of not granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners, which this Court do not find any reason to interfere as well. So the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail and the application is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the bail application is dismissed. But, if the petitioners surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court and move for regular bail, then the learned Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the bail application filed by the petitioners after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court in accordance with law as far as possible on the same date of filing of the application itself.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge