IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2367 of 2010()
1. RATHEESH KUMAR,S/O.MADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
----------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.2367 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated 5th July, 2010.
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offence 294(b), 506(ii), 324 and 452 of
the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner
committed house trespass into the shop room of defacto
complainant and assaulted him using a key like object and
committed the various offences. He also uttered obscene words
against him in public.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner and defacto complainant were doing business jointly. It
was dissolved and petitioner had gone to defacto complainant, to
get the money. At that time, defacto complainant assaulted
petitioner with stick and he sustained fracture to his nose and a
crime was also registered against defacto complainant. After
seven days, a complaint was registered against petitioner,
alleging various offences. The defacto complainant sustained a
fracture to the nasal bone. He also sustained contusion. On a
complaint made by defacto complainant a case was also
BA NO. 2367/10 2
registered against petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that defacto
complainant sustained bite marks on the face as well as on
shoulder and he also sustained certain other injuries. Petitioner
used a key like object to attack defacto complainant. Learned
Public Prosecutor also submitted that delay in lodging the
complaint in this case is explained. Since the police allegedly did
not register a case, defacto complainant filed a complaint before
the Superintendent of Police and thereafter, the case was
registered and it took unavoidable delay. He was also
hospitalised on the same day of incident. Petitioner had
trespassed into the shop room of defacto complainant and
committed the acts.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that two cases are
registered in respect of the same incident. In the case registered
against defacto complainant, petitioner had sustained a fracture
to the nasal bone. In this case, defacto complainant also
sustained certain injuries. It is revealed from the case put forward
by both sides that petitioner had gone to the defacto complainant
for asking for money, which he allegedly owed to petitioner. The
BA NO. 2367/10 3
incident allegedly occurred in defacto complainant’s shop. In such
circumstances, the mere fact that petitioner sustained a fracture
to the nasal bone may not by itself be sufficient to hold at this
stage that defacto complainant is the aggressor. The mere
registration of two crimes also will not be sufficient to extend any
benefit to petitioner. The incident happened when the petitioner
went to the defacto complainant, for asking money. Taking all the
above facts and circumstances into consideration, I do not think
that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE.
tgs