IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3287 of 2008()
1. SAMUEL GEORGE @ GEORGE SAMUEL
... Petitioner
2. JOSE SAM JOHN, S/O.K.S.JOY
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :09/06/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.3287 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008
ORDER
Petition for bail.
2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in crime
No.133/2008 of Kurathikad Police Station. Petitioners are in
custody from 12.4.2005 onwards. According to the prosecution,
on 12.4.2008, at about 7 p.m., while the defacto complainant was
sitting in his house, a car stopped in front of the house and the
second petitioner came to his house and called the defacto
complainant to the car wherein the first petitioner was sitting for
talking about a dispute. When he reached near the car first
petitioner came out with a sword stick and inflicted a cut injury
on his head and uttered that he will do away with the defacto
complainant. Second petitioner kicked on the stomach and he
fell down. The people of the locality intervened while the
petitioners drew away the car.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made. They
BA No.3287/08 2
are falsely implicated in the crime. It was pointed out that
though as per the prosecution case, a sword stick was used, the
injury sustained by the defacto complainant is a lacerated injury
on the top of his head. It is also submitted that the defacto
complainant was the mediator in a transaction between the first
petitioner and one Ramachandran. Even as per the prosecution
case, petitioners had gone to the house of the defacto
complainant for settling a dispute and they had no intention to
do any offence. The petitioners approached the defacto
complainant for mediation in connection with a sand selling deal
and no offence is committed as alleged.
4. Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the
defacto complainant also were heard. Learned public prosecutor
opposes this bail application and submitted that 5 crimes are
registered against the petitioners. (crime Nos.107/05, 271/06,
37/06, 220/06 and 364/06). It is submitted that out of the five
crimes, three were settled between the parties and in the two
other cases accused was acquitted.
5. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant
submitted that the petitioners are influential persons and in one
BA No.3287/08 3
of the crimes mentioned earlier, at the influence of the police,
even the charge sheet was not laid and a writ petition had to be
filed and a direction is given by this court to the DYSP to be
present in person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that he is not aware of pendency of any such case.
6. On hearing both sides, I find that the nature of the
injury sustained by the defacto complainant and the possibility of
such injury being caused by the alleged weapon and the manner
in which it is caused etc. are matters to be decided at the time of
evidence. But, on considering all the facts stated above, I find
that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners at this
stage.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl