High Court Kerala High Court

Mohammed Ali vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 7 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mohammed Ali vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 7 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3298 of 2010()


1. MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.K.P.VEERAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. USMAN, S/O.ABOOBAKKER, AGED 43 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :07/06/2010

 O R D E R
                                 K.HEMA, J
                            -----------------------
                        B.A No.3298 OF 2010
                        --------------------------------
                 Dated this the 7th day of June 2010

                                   ORDER

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 326 r/w 34

IPC. According to prosecution, on 06/04/2010 while the de facto

complainant was returning from the work, he was wrongfully

restrained by the petitioners in furtherance of their common

intention and they assaulted him using sword and knife and

inflicted serious injuries on him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. At a football

ground, there was altercation between two groups and the

petitioners happened to get into the same. But, they have not

committed any offence. Both the petitioners sustained injuries

and they were admitted in hospital ,as evidenced by Annexure A

and B.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that petitioner’s names were mentioned in the First

Information Statement itself and the de facto complainant

sustained very serious injuries. There was a cut to the nerve and

offence under Section 326 is committed.

B.A No.3298 OF 2010 2

5. On hearing both sides, It only appears that both sides

sustained injuries. But it is not understood on what ground the

petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that

this is not a fit case to grand anticipatory bail. The incident

happened on 06/04/2010 and petitioners were not available for

investigation.

6. Hence petitioners are directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. Whether

they appear or not, police is at liberty to arrest them in

accordance with law.

Petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA
JUDGE

vdv