High Court Kerala High Court

Renish vs The State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2008

Kerala High Court
Renish vs The State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 5587 of 2008()


1. RENISH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :17/10/2008

 O R D E R
                              K.HEMA, J.

                  -----------------------------------------
                         B.A.No. 5587 of 2008
                  -----------------------------------------

                 Dated this the 17th October, 2008

                               O R D E R

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 308

read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the

petitioner, along with other four accused, assaulted the de facto

complainant by using sword, iron rod etc. and caused fracture to

the leg and a part of his small finger was lost. There were injuries

on other parts of the body also, including on the head. The

petitioner was carrying a sword in his hand.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. In fact, the petitioner

was assaulted by the de facto complainant and a crime was

registered as Crime No.16/06 and he also sustained injuries as

revealed by the medical certificate. There was total amputation of

little finger at middle phalanx level. This case is only a counter blast

to the other case, it is submitted.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application

and submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are

serious in nature. The petitioner participated in the offence and he

was also using weapon. He is required for recovery of the weapon.

BA.5587/08 2

Injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are also grievous in

nature. Hence, anticipatory bail may not be granted to him, it is

submitted.

5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that grievous hurt was

caused to the de facto complainant. The petitioner was also

involved in the offence, as per the materials in the case diary. He

was implicated as per the First Information Statement itself. The

mere existence of a counter case is not a ground for granting

anticipatory bail. The petitioner’s interrogation will be required for

recovery of weapon. The incident happened as early as in 2006 and

the petitioner, who is the fifth accused, could not be arrested so far,

even after expiry of two years.

Petitioner is directed to surrender before the

investigating officer within seven days from today

and co-operate with the investigation.

With this direction, petition is dismissed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.