IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6256 of 2008()
1. AYOOB, 38 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED THAMBI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :20/10/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No.6256 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th October, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 448, 323,
324, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, on 9.7.2008 the petitioner, along with two other
accused, trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto
complainant and assaulted him and his wife and they sustained
injuries. A crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged
by the de facto complainant.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, who is the first accused was assaulted by the de facto
complainant and six others and the de facto complainant sustained
serious injuries and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail. It is
also submitted that as per the allegations in the present crime, the
de facto complainant only lost a tooth.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a weapon was
used by one of the accused. But, the tooth was lost not by the use of
any weapon and hence, the offence may be under Section 325 IPC
which is a bailable offence.
BA.6256/08 2
5. After hearing both sides, it appears that the offence
involved in this case at present does not include any non bailable
offence. Hence, no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail. The
mere fact that the first accused was attacked, without mentioning
time, place etc. is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The
submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that there was a
counter attack and that the petitioner was sustained injuries etc.
are not supported by documents. Even the nature of injuries
sustained by him could not be clearly stated by learned counsel for
petitioner. The incident occurred on 9.7.2008 and the petitioner
was not available for arrest and interrogation, in spite of lapse of
three months.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
investigating officer within seven days from today
and make himself available for interrogation and co-
operate with the investigation.
With these observation and direction, petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.