High Court Kerala High Court

Balan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 13 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
Balan vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 13 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5070 of 2008()


1. BALAN, AGED 61 YEARS,S/O.VELUMBIRA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :13/08/2008

 O R D E R
                                   K. HEMA, J.

                     -----------------------------------------------
                      Bail Appl.No. 5070 of 2008
                     -----------------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 13th day of August, 2008.

                                       ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 read with

Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, the petitioner along with

his son assaulted the petitioner’s brother and inflicted injuries. On a

complaint filed by him, a crime was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner’s

son was granted regular bail. Petitioner is an old person. He is having

several physical ailments. He is aged 61 years. The de facto

complainant is a quarrelsome person. He is engaged in several

assaults. He had assaulted petitioner’s wife on a day when he was not

present in the house. She was hospitalised. Tympanic membrane of

her ear drum was perforated, as revealed from the medical certificate

produced. But, thinking about the reputation of the family, no

criminal compliant was filed, it is submitted. The de facto complainant

is in the habit of drinking liquor and he is a drunkard.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted

that in this incident, the first accused used a chopper and the 2nd

[B.A.5070/08] 2

accused used a stick. As a result of the assault made by them,

petitioner sustained injury, including fracture. On the facts of this

case, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is

also submitted that the stick used by the petitioner for offence is not

recovered and the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions

made by learned Public Prosecutor. On facts also, I find it not proper to

grant anticipatory bail. The weapon of offence is also to be recovered,

for which the petitioner’s interrogation is required.

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

K. HEMA, JUDGE.

Krs.