IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3933 of 2010()
1. JAYAPRAKASH AGED 20 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. RATHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.CHELLA,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :08/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 3933 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324 and 308
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, petitioners(A2 and A2) in furtherance of their common
intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him
by using a chopper and thereby he sustained injuries and accused
committed various offences stated above.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are
absolutely innocent of the allegations made him that the de facto
complainant is a known goonda in the locality. First accused in this
case and one Jayakrishnan were attacked by de facto complainant
earlier and crime was also registered in respect of the same incident.
De facto complainant was insisting that the first accused and said
Jayakrishnan shall withdraw the case. Since harassment became
intolerable, the said Jayakrishanan committed suicide. Thereafter, de
facto complainant was insisting the first accused to withdraw the
complaint. While so, first and second accused while travelling in an
autorickshaw and they were intercepted by de facto complainant and
B.A. No. 3933 / 2010 2
they were attacked. They did not make any complaint, since they were
scared that the de facto complainant would again harass them. The
allegations made in the case are not correct, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that de facto complainant in this case sustained serious injuries. There
were as many as four incised wounds. A chopper was used in this case.
It is not recovered. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the
allegations made against the petitioner, the fact that chopper is not
recovered, the need for custodial interrogation, I am satisfied that this
is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the petitioners
counsel put forward a counter allegation, there is nothing on record to
substantiate or probabilise the same. The incident happened as early
as on 29.05.2010. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the
investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln