IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3428 of 2010()
1. SABU.P.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN,AGED 35 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHYAM KUMAR.K.S,S/O.SASIDHARAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------
B.A. No. 3428 of 2010
-----------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324,
308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to
prosecution, on 23.04.2010 at about 10.45 P.M., petitioners (A1
and A2) intercepted the car driven by the de facto complainant
and assaulted him using iron pipe and iron rod. Third accused
was also attacked him and the de facto complainant sustained
injuries and thereby, the accused committed the above offences.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto
complainant and his associates are goondas in the locality. They
have, in fact, attacked the petitioners, who are accused nos. 1
and 2 and they had also gone to the hospital on sustaining
injuries. At the instance of the de facto complainant, offence
under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is included and
there is no allegation against second accused that he
committed any overt acts. The injury sustained by the de facto
B.A. No. 3428 / 2010 2
complainant are minor and hence petitioner may be granted
anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that as per the allegations made in the F.I. Statement,
both petitioners assaulted by de facto complainant using iron
pipe and iron rod. There are corresponding injuries also, on the
de facto complainant. He was admitted in the hospital. He
sustained fracture to the mandible and other multiple lacerated
wounds on the head. He had history of vomiting and other
injuries also. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and on going through the
documents produced Annexure-2(A) and (B) and the wound
certificate issued to the de facto complainant, and on considering
the various facts and circumstances, I find that the nature of the
allegations made against petitioners are serious. Though the de
facto complainant is stated to be a goonda, he sustained various
lacerated wounds on his head, and other parts of the body
including a fracture to the mandible. But, the petitioners had only
complaints of body pain, as revealed from the documents
B.A. No. 3428 / 2010 3
produced. In such circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit
case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender
and co-operate with the investigation.
No further application for anticipatory
bail by petitioners in this crime will be
entertained by this court hereafter.
Petition is dismissed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
ln