IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6930 of 2009()
1. LIPSON AND ANOTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
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. 6930 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused
Nos. 1 and 2 Crime No.596/2009 of Mannuthy Police Station,
Thrissur.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under
Sections 452 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is that on 18/10/2009, the
accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto
complainant and attacked his daughter aged 6 = years with an
iron rod and she sustained injuries on her face.
4. In the F.I. Statement, it is stated that the accused
persons were following Shaju, the brother of the de facto
complainant in order to attack him with an iron rod and sword.
Shaju escaped and came running to the house of the de facto
complainant. He closed the grill and escaped. The accused
persons came to the compound of the de facto complainant. The
B.A. No. 6930/2009
2
daughter of the de facto complainant was sitting in the Varanda
and reading. At that time, she was attacked by the accused. The
girl became unconscious. She was taken to the hospital.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the first petitioner had sustained serious injuries on his head and
that the police did not register a case against the assailant,
namely, the brother of the de facto complainant. On the other
hand, the police wanted to arrest the petitioners. The case is a
foisted one. There was no intention to cause any injury to the
daughter of the de facto complainant and therefore, if at all the
allegations are found to be true, no offence as alleged would lie
against the petitioners.
6. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, there
are materials to indicate that the petitioners committed criminal
trespass and caused injuries to the daughter of the de facto
complainant. The rival contentions of the parties are to5 be
considered at the time of trial. At the time of disposal of the Bail
Application, all these contentions need not be considered.
7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
B.A. No. 6930/2009
3
case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations
levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit
case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely
affect the proper investigation of the case.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm