IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3025 of 2010()
1. GEORGE KUTTY, AGED 45,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE S.I OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :31/05/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
--------------------
Bail Application No.3025 Of 2010
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of May 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147,
148, 149, 452, 326, 324, 427 & 354 of the IPC. According to
prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with other accused formed into
an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the
de facto complainant and assaulted de facto complainant, his son
and his wife using deadly weapons. Iron rod was used by the
petitioners and injuries were sustained by all the injured. De facto
complainant’s son sustained fracture to the nasal bone.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there
was a dispute between the de facto complainant and CITU workers
in respect of loading and unloading. Since there was some
unpleasant talk between the petitioner and de facto complainant
in the morning of the date of occurrence, de facto complainant
suspected that the petitioner and others committed the offence
and filed complaint. Petitioners are innocent of the allegation
made.
4. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and learned
Public Prosecutor are heard. This petition is opposed. Learned
Bail Application No.3025 Of 2010 2
Public Prosecutor submitted that three persons were injured in the
incident. The first accused has used an iron rod and a fracture is
sustained by de facto complainant’s son. The name of the
petitioner is stated in the First Information Statement itself. This
was an motivated attack. It was also submitted by learned Public
Prosecutor that petitioner along with others came to the de facto
complainant’s house where he was selling live chicken. Petitioner
and other persons who came for chicken were abusing each other
and the de facto complainant asked them to wait outside and also
told them that the chicken would be supplied to their car. This
was not to the liking of the de facto complainant and incurated by
this, the de facto complainant and his family members were
attacked. This petition is opposed.
5. On hearing both sides and going through the Case Diary
and the Wound Certificate and on considering the serious nature
of the allegations made, the need for interrogation of the
petitioner, recovery of the weapon etc, I find that this is not a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HEMA, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv