IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6656 of 2008(V)
1. VIJAYAN, ATTINPURAM,
... Petitioner
2. SHYJU, S/O.VIJAYAN, ATTINPURAM
3. VASANTHA, D/O.RAJAMMA, ATTINPURAM,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :14/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.6656 of 2008
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324 and
326 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution,
accused nos. 1 to 3, in furtherance of common intention,
assaulted the defacto complainant using stick and he lost a tooth.
The incident occurred on 18.9.2008.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that
defacto complainant was enmical towards petitioners’ family. He
is their neighbour. He is also engaged in illicit liquor business.
He used to come in front of the house of petitioners and under
intoxication, abuse inmates of the house. He also used to
undress himself and despite warnings, he continued these
activities. Hence, a complaint was given to the police on
13.7.2008. On enquiry by police, it was found that the
allegations are correct and hence, defacto complainant
undertook before the police that he would not repeat such acts
and he also signed in the station, it is submitted. But, on
19.9.2008, he again came in front of the house and undressed
BA No. 6656/2008 2
himself and immediately, information was passed on to the police
station stating all these facts. The third petitioner, who is the
mother of the first accused, filed a complaint before the Sub
Inspector, copy of which is Annexure A, in which the earlier
complaint and settlement are referred to. The defacto
complainant, as usual, came in front of the house and created
problems and he was sent away and in the course of the same, a
scuffle occurred and he fell down and lost his teeth, it is
submitted. Petitioners are prepared to abide by any condition
and anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted.
4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that third
petitioner is is not an accused in this case and hence, police has
no intention to arrest her in connection with this crime. This
submission is recorded. As far as the first and the second
accused are concerned, they had assaulted the defacto
complainant by using wooden stick, as the case diary reveals.
Both of them had used the wooden sticks and the defacto
complainant sustained contusion on the head and abrasion on
the back and he also lost a tooth. In the nature of allegations
made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is
submitted.
BA No. 6656/2008 3
5. On hearing both sides, It is clear from Annexure A
that the parties had approached the Sub Inspector with their
grievance earlier and the defacto complainant had acted in an
objectionable manner in front of their house. He had agreed not
to create any problem also. But, thereafter, the nuisance was
repeated despite the undertaking made by him before the police.
Whether petitioners only made efforts to prevent a nuisance or
not is a matter which can be established at the time of evidence.
Considering the rival contentions, I find that anticipatory bail
can be granted to the petitioners on conditions:
Hence, the following order is passed:
(1) Petitioners 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) shall surrender before
the Investigating Officer within seven days from today
and in case of arrest, they shall be released on bail on
their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two
solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction
of the arresting officer on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigation
and make themselves available for interrogation.
(ii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating
Officer as and when directed.
BA No. 6656/2008 4
(iii) Petitioners shall not intimidate any witness or
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The prayer for anticipatory bail by third petitioner is
rejected since she is not an accused.
The petition is partly allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl