IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6748 of 2008()
1. ULLAS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KALATHIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
2. BIJU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KALATHIL HOUSE,
3. ANILKUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KALATHIL
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VELLORE POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP MOHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No. 6748 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148,
323, 324, 341, 308 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. According
to prosecution, petitioners (accused 1, 2 and 4) formed into an
unlawful assembly and armed with knife and wooden stick
wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and two others and
assaulted them. De facto complainant and two others sustained
injury in the incident. The incident occurred on 7.10.2008 at about
10.30 p.m from the courtyard of the house of first accused.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that first accused
and his wife were living separately for some time. De facto
complainant is his wife’s brother. To settle the issue between first
accused and his wife, de facto complainant and other persons came
to the house of first accused. There was a talk from the courtyard
and his father was abused by de facto complainant. Thereafter, de
facto complainant and others trespassed into the house and
assaulted first accused and others and in the course of the incident,
second and third accused also sustained injuries. Third accused’s
daughter, who is aged 1 = years also sustained injuries in the
BA.6748/08 2
attack. Second accused is first accused’s father’s brother’s son.
Third accused is first accused’s brother. Both of them are residing
nearby. Their wives are also arrayed as accused in this crime.
Accused 1 to 3 and the child of third accused sustained injuries, but
a crime was registered only under Sections 341, 323 and 447 read
with 34 IPC as Crime No.198/2008 on the basis of a statement
given by first accused.
4. But de facto complainant gave a statement only on
10.10.2008, after three days of the incident and on the basis of such
statement, now a crime is registered subsequently as Crime
no.199/2008 against the accused alleging that de facto complainant
and others were assaulted by accused. Actually, de facto
complainant and others trespassed into the house of first accused
and committed the various offences. Offence under Section 308 IPC
also was included and in such circumstances, if petitioners are not
granted anticipatory bail, they will suffer irreparable injury and
loss, it is submitted.
5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that though the incident occurred in the house of first
accused, admittedly, de facto complainant, who is the brother-in-
law of first accused had gone to the house with other persons for
BA.6748/08 3
settling the dispute between first accused and his wife. Thereafter,
first accused and others assaulted de facto complainant and others,
who had gone to the house by using knife and wooden stick and
they sustained injuries. Three persons had sustained stab wounds
and other persons were also injured in the incident. On the facts of
this case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted. Accused had used knife and wooden stick also to commit
the offences.
6. On hearing both sides, it prima facie appears that a
settlement talk culminated in an assault between two groups. Both
sustained injuries and both of them were hospitalised. Though the
present crime is registered after three days of the incident, it is
clear from the wound certificate that the injured were in the
hospital within 45 minutes of the incident. They had sustained stab
wounds also. First Information Statement was recorded from the
hospital itself. Considering the nature of allegations made and the
nature of investigation required, which include recovery of weapons
also, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
The incident occurred as early as on 7.10.2008 and prime accused
have not been arrested in this case.
BA.6748/08 4
Petitioners (accused 1, 2 and 4) are directed
to appear before the investigating officer and co-
operate with the investigation without any delay.
Whether petitioners surrender or not, police is at
liberty to arrest petitioners at any time and
proceed in accordance with law.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.