IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 4918 of 2008()
1. VINOD, AGED 27, S/O. RAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMANATHAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :07/08/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bail Application No.4918 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. According to the prosecution, on 22.2.2008, the
defacto complainant and two sons attacked the first accused and
there was a crime registered in respect of that incident. As a
retaliation to it, the present crime was committed by A1 to A4.
On a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a crime is
registered under Sections 323, 341 and 326 read with Section 34
IPC. He sustained fracture.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the fourth accused and he is not specifically named
in the First Information Statement. He is from the same locality
and the omission will indicate that the petitioner was not
involved. It is also pointed out that even if the prosecution
allegation is admitted, the petitioner only assaulted by using
hands and there is no corresponding injury also. The only
person who used the weapon (iron rod) is the first accused. It is
also submitted that the second accused was granted anticipatory
BA No.4918/08 2
bail by this Court as per order dated 9.7.2008 in B.A.No.4124/08.
Learned counsel for petitioner also added that the motive for the
crime stated in the FI statement is that the defacto complainant
was attacked only because he is an office bearer of the temple
committee.
4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
submitted that this crime was committed as a retaliation to an
earlier crime. It is true that in the FI statement, it was stated
that the defacto complainant was attacked as an office bearer of
the temple committee but, the involvement of the petitioner and
the motive have been brought to light in the investigation. A
crime was also registered in connection with the attack on the
first accused on an earlier date. The witnesses have stated that
the petitioner was also involved. It is also submitted that
anticipatory bail was granted to the second accused in the
peculiar facts and circumstances, since father’s name, avocation
and locality stated in the First Information Statement did not
tally with the actual details. The petitioner cannot, therefore,
claim any benefit, on the strength of the anticipatory bail
granted to the second accused. It is also pointed out that the
BA No.4918/08 3
defacto complainant has sustained a fracture and the offence
was committed in furtherance of common intention.
5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the
nature of the offence committed, particularly, since the
petitioner’s involvement was revealed from the investigation
conducted, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the
petitioner. Though the petitioner would content that he is the
person from the locality, there is nothing on record to show that
he was known to the defacto complainant earlier. The details
can be revealed at the time of evidence.
The petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl