IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Bail Appl..No. 17 of 2010() 1. JINESH @ MANIKANTAN, ... Petitioner 2. MURUKAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :14/01/2010 O R D E R K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.17 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.249 of 2009 of Pozhiyoor
Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
3. The prosecution case is that on 13.12.2009, at 8 P.M.
while the de facto complainant was going home after taking a
bath in the river, he was attacked by the accused. The first
accused beat him with an iron rod. It is also alleged that the
second accused beat him and kicked him. The de facto
complainant sustained injuries. The wound certificate discloses
that the de facto complainant had sustained fracture on his right
4. The petitioners have a different story. It is stated that
on 13.12.2009, at about 1 P.M., the motor bike driven by the first
BA No.17/2010 2
petitioner and another bike driven by one James had a collision.
The de facto complainant was the pillion rider on the motor bike
of James. There was no complaint for either party. The first
petitioner went home. In the evening, the de facto complainant
picked up a quarrel with the first petitioner in respect of the
incident which took place at 1 P.M. The first petitioner was
attacked by the de facto complainant. The first petitioner
sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and he was
treated as an inpatient in the hospital for 8 days. Crime No.258
of 2009 was registered against the de facto complainant under
Sections 294(b), 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. It is stated that the second petitioner is the father of
the first petitioner. The allegation against the second petitioner
is beating with hands and kicking. The injury sustained by the
de facto complainant is not attributable to any overt act done by
the second accused. In these circumstances, I am inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner (second accused).
However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury
sustained by the de facto complainant, I am not inclined to grant
BA No.17/2010 3
anticipatory bail to the first petitioner (first accused).
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
the second petitioner/second accused (Murukan), the officer in
charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his
executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the
like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject
to the following conditions:
a) The second petitioner shall appear before the investigating
officer for interrogation as and when required;
b) The second petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
c) The second petitioner shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;
d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to
the first petitioner (first accused) and it is allowed in the manner
indicated above in so far as it relates to the second