IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3512 of 2010()
1. DILEEP, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN
... Petitioner
2. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI,
3. DEEPU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN
4. DINESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :30/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No. 3512 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010
O R D E R
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 326
and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According
to prosecution, on 21.05.2010 at about 9 P.M., petitioners
(accused nos. 1, 4, 2 and 3 respectively), trespassed into the sit-
out of the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted de
facto complainant by using sticks and hand and thereby
committed various offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused
nos. 2 and 3 were injured in the incident. They were assaulted by
de facto complainant by using an iron rod on their head and they
also sustained injuries. They were hospitalised on the same night
and they were discharged only on 22nd and 24th May, 2010.
According to petitioners, the incident happened at a junction, not
in the house, as alleged. But on knowing that petitioners were
admitted in the hospital, de facto complainant got himself
admitted in hospital. He had not sustained any serious injuries,
B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 2
but a crime was registered on a statement given by him under
Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code etc.
4. It is also submitted that false allegation is made that the
incident happened inside the house of the de facto complainant,
for the purpose of including the offence under Section 452 of the
Indian Penal Code. Petitioners apprehend that they will suffer
irreparable injury and loss, if anticipatory bail is not granted. It
is also pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners that de
facto complainant was actually attacking the accused in this case
on the belief that they were spreading rumours about his wife.
However, as per the allegation in the F.I. Statement, the motive
alleged is as follows: de facto complainant, warned the accused
not to spread rumours about his wife and also that he would
complaint to the police if they continued to do so. Therefore,
accused had enmity towards de facto complainant.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto
complainant has not sustained any grievous hurt and hence,
offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is deleted.
B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 3
Iron rod and sticks were used for the offence and those are to be
recovered, for which, petitioners interrogation is necessary, it is
submitted.
6. On hearing both sides and on going through the
documents produced as well as the case diary in this case, it
appears that second and third accused sustained injuries on their
head and there is an allegation that they were assaulted using
iron rod on 21.05.2010 at about 9 P.M. and they were
hospitalised also. On going through the F.I. Statement in this
case, it can be seen that de facto complainant made an
allegation that his two teeth were loosened in the assault and
hence offence under Section 326 was included while registering
the crime. But, the wound certificate relating to him shows that
he had no injury to the tooth at all.
7. In such circumstances, it appears that petitioners have a
strong and arguable case regarding the place where incident
happened. The defence can be established only during trial. At
the same time, considering the serious nature of the allegations
B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 4
made, I do not think that anticipatory bail will be the remedy.
Petitioners have required for interrogation and recovery of the
weapons allegedly used and hence following order is passed.
1. Petitioner shall surrender before the
investigating officer within seven days from
today and co-operate with the investigation.
2. On such surrender, if petitioners are arrested,
offence under section 452 will be treated as
not included for the purpose of bail.
This petition is disposed of.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln