IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 44 of 2009()
1. ANILKUMAR @ UNNI,
... Petitioner
2. KRISHNAKUMAR,
3. SUNIL,
4. RAJAMMA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :21/01/2009
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------------
Bail Appl. No. 44 of 2009
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009.
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143,
147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 326 and 149 of IPC. According to
prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A3) in furtherance of common
intention assaulted de facto complainant and caused fracture to
the nasal bone and other injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
petitioners have not committed any offence, as alleged. There
was a push and pull and, in the meantime, de facto complainant
had fallen down and sustained fracture to nasal bone. The
incident happened because of some other reason. De facto
complainant was constructing a commercial flat in the adjacent
building where piling was going on and as a result, the small
house of petitioner collapsed. In spite of this, de facto
complainant continued the work and though representations
were made by petitioner before the authorities nobody heeded
to the grievances.
[B.A.No.44/09] 2
The de facto complainant approached this Court for police
protection, which was denied by making certain observations
against de facto complainant stating that he may move the civil
court, if so advised. He did not move the civil court but
continued with the piling work so as to create problem to the
peaceful living of petitioners in the partly destructed house.
Because of this, there was some altercation and an unfortunate
incident happened. The charge-sheet has already been filed and
if petitioners surrender before Magistrate Court it is likely that
they will be remanded and hence this petition.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 4th
petitioner is not an accused in this case. The other petitioners
are accused nos.1 to 3. Charge-sheet has already been laid and
police does not require petitioners for investigation. He also
submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to
petitioners in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail
can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following
order is passed:
1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by 4th petitioner is
rejected as infructuous.
[B.A.No.44/09] 3
2) Petitioners 1 to 3 shall surrender before the
Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be
released on bail in the event of their arrest on their
executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent
sureties each for the like to the satisfaction of learned
Magistrate on the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall not commit any offence
while on bail and in case of breach of this
condition, bail is liable to be cancelled.
Petition is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.
Krs.