High Court Kerala High Court

Shibu vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Shibu vs State Of Kerala on 2 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 4311 of 2008()


1. SHIBU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. UDAYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NATARAJAN,
3. JUDY, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY DIRECTOR OF
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAIRA PHIROZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :02/07/2008

 O R D E R
                                    K. HEMA, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                              B.A.No. 4311 of 2008
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008

                                       O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 341 and 326 read

with section 34 IPC. Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the crime. According

to the prosecution, accused 2 and 3 pulled the defacto-complainant by hand

and wrongfully restrained him facilitating the 1st accused to beat him with

iron road and the 1st accused thereby caused fracture to the skull by beating.

All of them assaulted the defacto-complainant, thereafter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners

are totally innocent of the allegations made. The defacto-complainant had

hired an autorickshaw from the 1st petitioner and he had given back the

same also. But, initially he resisted returning the same and there were

repeated demands to return the same. Because of this, the defacto-

complainant developed some enmity towards the petitioners. The defacto-

complainant is a drunkard and he falls down under intoxication frequently

and in this case also, he had fallen down and sustained injury. The defacto-

BA 4311/08 -2-

complainant, thereafter, gave a false statement to the police based upon

which, the petitioners were implicated in the offence.

4. . On going through the wound certificate it is seen that there is

no smell of alcohol. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that

petitioners are required for the purpose of recovery. Though the incident

happened on 4-6-2008, they were not available for arrest or for recovery of

the weapon used. On hearing both sides and on considering the various

aspects, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

The application is dismissed.

K. HEMA,
JUDGE.

mn.