IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5897 of 2008()
1. ANEESH, AGED 21 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :25/09/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
B.A.No.5897 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323,
324, 326 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioner along
with three others came in a motor cycle and assaulted the
defacto complainant and he sustained grievous injuries. A1 and
A3 used sickles for the commission of the offence. Petitioner is
the first accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is falsely implicated and that it is improbable that four
persons can travel in a motor cycle. In fact, the defacto
complainant was returning from a toddy shop and he could not
identify any of the accused. He named the first and the third
accused, while one of his friends named second and the fourth
accused. But, now, all the persons are implicated in the offence.
There was an earlier incident in the same night, in a toddy shop
and the alleged motive is the said incident. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner was not
mentioned to the doctor.
BA No.5897/08 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that the first accused has allegedly used a sickle for
the commission of offence and fracture is also caused to the
defacto complainant. His name is mentioned in the First
Information Statement itself. The weapon is to be recovered and
hence, petitioner is required for interrogation. Learned public
prosecutor submitted that the history of alleged cause of injury is
not recorded in Malayalam, but, it is recorded in English as
“alleged assault”.
5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the statement
recorded in the wound certificate may be the summary which is
recorded in English. I am satisfied that the doctor omitted to
record that the allegations made to him in verbatim and hence,
at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved.
Petitioner will be required for interrogation and recovery of
weapon and considering the nature of allegations made and
injuries sustained in the incident, it may not be fit to grant
anticipatory bail.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl