IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7121 of 2008()
1. S. BINOJ, AGED 27 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :27/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.7121 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147,
148, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 IPC. According to
prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with other accused armed with
deadly weapons, like iron rod, attacked the defacto complainant
and others and inflicted injuries on them. Defacto complainant
sustained a fracture and other serious injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that all the
accused were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions
Judge except A1 and A2. A2 was arrested after discharge from
the hospital. He was also injured in the incident. It was actually
an assault on the accused by the defacto complainant and others
due to political rivalry, it is submitted. A counter case is also
pending and it is unbelievable that an attack will be made by
about 10 to 13 persons against a procession conducted by about
50 persons, it is submitted.
BA No. 7121/2008 2
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that it was the petitioner who had inflicted injury to
the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant sustained an
injury, which had 12 stitches and also a fracture on the hand.
Petitioner had used an iron rod to commit the offence. Learned
Sessions Judge has rightly taken into account these facts to
reject the petition for anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned
public prosecutor also submitted that in a case of this nature, it
is not proper to grant anticipatory bail.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in a case of
this nature wherein serious injuries are inflicted on the defacto
complainant by use of a weapon like iron rod, it may not be
proper to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not been able to
point out any circumstance which would probablise his
innocence or non involvement in the crime, except making a bare
assertion that he was implicated in every case in which there is a
political clash.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl