High Court Kerala High Court

Chandrahasan vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Chandrahasan vs State Of Kerala on 24 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 6250 of 2008()


1. CHANDRAHASAN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KUTTAPPAN NADAR,
3. ANILKUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :24/10/2008

 O R D E R
                                K. HEMA, J.
        - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         B.A. No. 6250 of 2008
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
            Dated this the 24th day of October,2008

                                  O R D E R

Petition for bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 326, 324 read

with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 to

A3) in furtherance of their common objection assaulted de facto

complainant by using measuring weight and also iron block and

inflicted a fracture on the rib on 17-8-2008.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there was

only an altercation and no injury was inflicted on de facto

complainant. De facto complainant was hospitalized only after

two days of the incident and petitioners are not responsible for

the rib fracture. The rib fractured can be caused even by a fall, it

is submitted. It is also submitted that there is a delay in

registration of the crime. It was registered only on 26-8-2008.

4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that a fracture was caused in the incident and the pain

got aggravated by two days and then only de facto complainant

was taken to hospital. But that does not mean that de facto

complainant did not sustain any injury. Measuring weight and iron

block were used for the commission of offences. These are to be

BA 6250 /08 -2-

recovered. If petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, recovery

will not be possible.

5. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that petitioners are

required for interrogation and recovery of weapons. If anticipatory

bail is granted, there may not be an effective investigation. The

incident occurred as early as on 17-8-2008 and petitioners have

evaded arrest. On the facts of the case, it is not a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail.

Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before

the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and

co-operate with the investigation.

With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

mn.