IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3589 of 2010()
1. JIJI, S/O.POULOSE,
... Petitioner
2. BENNY S/O.JOSEPH,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH JOHN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :01/07/2010
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 3589 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 341, 323,
324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According
to prosecution, petitioners (A2 and A3) along with first accused, on
24.05.2010 at about 7.30 P.M., in furtherance of their common
intention, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him
using stone, iron rod and committed various offences stated above.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners in
respect of the same incident, crime no. 126/2010 was also registered,
on the statement given by second accused. First accused in this case
was granted bail by this court. It is also submitted that there is no
corresponding injury to the blow allegedly inflicted. As per the
allegation, only one blow was inflicted on the head, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted
that granting of bail to first accused after his arrest is not a ground to
grant anticipatory bail to petitioners. De facto complainant is the vice
present of a Panchayath and he was attacked by third accused using
iron rod and sword. He sustained injury also on the head as revealed
B.A. No. 3589 / 2010 2
from the wound certificate. The injury sustained was linear laceration
on the head. Iron rod is used by the second accused and it is to be
recovered for which custodial interrogation is necessary in this case.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made
by learned Public Prosecutor. Custodial interrogation of the accused is
needed for effecting recovery of the weapon allegedly used for the
offence. The injuries sustained by de facto complainant are linear
lacerated injuries and the weapon used is iron rod, which prima facie
corroborating prosecution case.
6. I am satisfied that the allegations made against petitioners are
serious in nature and considering various other facts and
circumstances also, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and
co-operate with the investigation without any delay.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln