IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 6109 of 2008() 1. ASHRAF NARIKOOTTAMCHAL, ... Petitioner 2. ASLAM, S/O. KUNHAMMAD, 32 YEARS, -DO- 3. RIYAS KUNIYIL, S/O. UMMAR, 4. NIZAR, S/O. KUNHABDULLA, AGED 29 YEARS Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ... Respondent 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA Dated :20/10/2008 O R D E R K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6109 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2008. ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143,
147, 148, 452, 323, 324, 506(i) read with 149 of IPC. According
to prosecution, the de facto complainant and the first accused
were working abroad. The first accused borrowed some money
from the de facto complainant and a demand was made to return
the money. This offended the first accused and hence, he along
with 4 others, allegedly trespassed into the house of de facto
complainant and assaulted his father. The first accused used an
iron rod and injuries were sustained.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the incident did not occur, as alleged. The petitioners were invited
by the de facto complainant’s father, for settling the dispute
relating to money. The petitioners went to their house in a car
and the matter being talked into. In the meanwhile, the
petitioners were assaulted and the car was also damaged by the
de facto complainant and others. Petitioners were hospitalized for
four days. Thereafter, the de facto complainant and others filed
the present crime without any basis leaving some action against
them, it is submitted. To the knowledge of the petitioners, the de
facto complainant’s father was not even hospitalised, it is
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted as per the allegations, the petitioners along with
others trespassed into the house of de facto complainant since
the first accused was offended because of the demand made by
the de facto complainant’s father to return the money, which he
borrowed. An iron rod was used to beat the de facto
complainant’s father on his leg and he was taken to the hospital.
As per the wound certificate, the injured was found crying, but
as per the X-ray, no fracture was noted. It is true that in the
First Information Statement the weapon was described as stick
( ) but he explained in further questioning that the weapon
used is iron rod ( ). It cannot be said that it is a vital
5. On hearing both sides, I find that there was an
attack and counter attack but mere counter allegation is not
sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. In an offence of this nature,
it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The iron rod, which is
allegedly used for committing the offence is to be recovered and
the petitioners will be required for interrogation.
This petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE.