Rahul vs State Of Kerala Rep By … on 2 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 7856 of 2008()


1. RAHUL, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, POKKINEZHATHU
                      ...  Petitioner
2. PRADEEP, S/O.RAJAPPAN, THURUTHUMALIL
3. JAGADEESH, S/O.VAVA,KIZHAKKECHURAVELIL,
4. JISHNU, S/O.SHIBU, MONISHA NIVAS,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY P.PROSECUTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP MOHAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :02/02/2009

 O R D E R
                             K.HEMA, J.
                      ---------------------------------
                      B.A. No.7856 OF 2008
                      ----------------------------------
            Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009


                              O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324 and

308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused

nos.2 to 5) in furtherance of common intention with 4 others

allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted

injuries on him, using iron rod, sword etc.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that

petitioners are accused nos.2 to 5 and they have not

committed any offence, as alleged. The allegation is that they

committed offence under Section 308 of I.P.C., which is the

only non bailable offence. But, the injuries sustained by the

defacto complainant are only contusions, which do not

correspond to the nature of alleged assault.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the

allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

But he fairly conceded that the injuries on the defacto

complainant are only 2 contusions.

B.A.No.7856 of 2008
2

On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit

case to grant anticipatory bail. But on considering the facts

and circumstances, I find that for the purpose of bail, the

offence involved in this case can be treated as falling under

Section 324 of I.P.C. instead of 308 of I.P.C. The incident

occurred as early as on 17.04.2008 and petitioners are not

available for arrest.

Petitioners are directed to surrender before

the Investigating Officer and co-operate with

the investigation. On such surrender, the

offence involved will be treated as one under

Section 324 of I.P.C. instead of 308 of I.P.C.

This is only for the purpose of bail, it is made

clear.

With this observation, the petition is disposed of.

K.HEMA, JUDGE

pac