IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5140 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.412/08 OF NADAPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------- KUNHABDULLA @ ABULLA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIPOKKER, KIZHAKKEYIL HOUSE, KUMMANKODE AMSOM DESOM, NADAPURAM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV.SRI.M.ASOKAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE,NADAPURAM POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5140 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution, petitioner (first accused) along with his father in law (second accused) trespassed into the courtyard of the house of defacto complainant and the second accused assaulted him with a stick and the first accused stabbed him with a knife. Fracture and incise injury were caused to the defacto complainant and on the basis of the statement given by him, a crime was registered. The incident happened on 27/07/2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also injured in the incident. The accident did not happen as alleged. Complainant is the nephew of the petitioner's father in law. There is a property dispute between them. The petitioner intervened when his father in law was seen attacked by the defacto complainant. He sustained injuries and he was B.A.5140/2008 2 hospitalized. On the basis of a statement given by him, a crime was registered as crime no.412/08. The petitioner has not committed any offence, but during the course of the incident, the defacto complainant had fallen down on the boulders and he had sustained some injuries, for which the petitioner is not responsible. It was also pointed out that the second accused was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Session Judge and the first accused may also be granted anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. It is submitted that application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge was dismissed. It was however pointed out that anticipatory bail to the second accused was granted but it was only on consideration of the age of the second accused. He is 70 years old. It is submitted that the defacto complainant sustained an incised injury in the palm, which was caused by the use of knife by the first accused, who is the petitioner herein. He had also sustained fracture of teeth, which is caused by the second accused by beating with a stick. The incident happened from the courtyard of the defacto complainant. In such B.A.5140/2008 3 circumstances, anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. After hearing both sides, it appears that there was a case and counter case, and an attack and a counter attack, but nothing is pointed out to establish that the defacto complainant is the aggressor. The incident happened in the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and there is no explanation why petitioner went there. In such circumstances, in the nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE scm