IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1955 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.299/2010 OF PARAVUR POLICE STATION OF KOLLAM DISTRICT. ......... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED ----------------------- 1. C.UDAYAKUMAR @ UDAYAN, PALAVILA KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. 2. S.SELVAKUMAR, SIVAMAYAM, THOTTUVILA KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. 3. B.RAVIKUMAR ANILKUMAR @ KUMAR, PALAVILA, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. 4. G.JANARDHANAN, MUTHALAMUKKU VEEDU, KALLUMKUNNU, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. 5. G.RAMABHADRAN @ JEEVAN, MUTHALAMUKKU VEEDU, KALLUMKUNNU, KURUMANDAL, PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 1955 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 07.03.2010 at about 10. 30 P.M., petitioners (accused nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7) along with others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with sticks wrongfully confined the de facto complainant and assaulted him using sticks and thereby committed the above offences. Two persons were injured in the incident. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was six days' delay in lodging the complaint. Only stick was used and no fracture was caused and hence offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code will not lie, it is submitted. According to petitioner de facto complainant was a goonda. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the statement of the de facto complainant he had lost his tooth and other injured had a fracture. But, the wound certificate do not reveal B.A. No. 1955 / 2010 2 any fracture or loss of tooth. However, injuries were sustained by de facto complainant on the forehead etc. which are of considerable measurement. There were injuries measuring 6X3X1 cm and 4X2X1cm and both the injuries were sutured. De facto complainant was admitted in the hospital on 07.03.2010 and discharged only on 18.03.2010. There was severe bleeding from the injuries. In the case of the other injured also, there was an injury on the forehead which profuse bleeding and it measures 7X2X1 cm and the said injury was also sutured. The weapons used for the offences are not seized so far and petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that petitioner's custodial interrogation will be necessary for effecting the recovery of weapons of offence. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On going through the wound certificate and considering the serious nature of the allegations made also, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. However, it appears that petitioner has a strong and arguable case in respect of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the following order is passed: B.A. No. 1955 / 2010 3 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2. On such surrender, if petitioner is arrested offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code will be treated, as not included, for the purpose of bail. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln