IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3384 of 2010()
1. VINESH @ JOSE, AGED 28, S/O.JOSEPH,
... Petitioner
2. ARUN, AGED 21, S/O.ANTONY,
3. JOY, AGED 21, S/O.JOHN,
4. VINOD, AGED 20, S/O.GEORGE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :29/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.3384 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 294(b), 324,
427 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to
prosecution, on 18/04/2010, petitioners (A1 to A4), in furtherance of
their common intension, assaulted de facto complainant using
sword etc. and inflicted injuries on him. They also abused de facto
complainant in filthy language in public. Mobile phone was also
damaged. There is also an allegation that Rs.7,500/- was taken.
There was an earlier incident in which the autorikshaw in which
petitioners were travelling blocked a private bus and there was a
quarrel between the parties. It is out of the enmity that the
petitioners assaulted de facto complainant.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that allegations
constituting offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act are not there
in the FIR. It is subsequently included. No weapon was used for the
offence. Injuries sustained are minor. Injury was sustained when
the helper in the bus tried to attack first accused with a ticket rack
and when he evaded, the hit fell on de facto complainant’s head.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that in the FIS itself, there is an allegation that a sword
was used and it was kept behind the shirt in a hidden state. Injuries
B.A No.3384 OF 2010 2
were sustained by two persons in this case and it is not correct to
say that nobody sustained serious injuries. There was an injury on
the scalp of the injured and an allegation was made to the doctor
on the same day of the incident when the injured were hospitalised
that an attack was made witha sword stick. Weapon is not so far
recovered. Petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and
recovery of weapon. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail,
it is submitted.
5. On hearing both sides and going through the case diary,
particularly the wound certificate etc. and on considering the
serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is
not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is also seen from the
documents that a weapon which fall under Section 27 of the Arms
Act was allegedly used and it is not recovered so far. Interrogation
would be required for recovery of the said weapon. Petitioners
could not substantiate their innocence, but, there are only bare
assertions of innocence. Petitioners are bound to surrender before
the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with
investigation.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv