IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7856 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.235/2008 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED 2 TO 5 : ----------------------------------------- 1. RAHUL, S/O.APPUKUTTAN, POKKINEZHATHU HOUSE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.RAJAPPAN, THURUTHUMALIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA. 3. JAGADEESH, S/O.VAVA,KIZHAKKECHURAVELIL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM. 4. JISHNU, S/O.SHIBU, MONISHA NIVAS, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/ STATE : ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY P.PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.7856 OF 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324 and 308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.2 to 5) in furtherance of common intention with 4 others allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant and inflicted injuries on him, using iron rod, sword etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are accused nos.2 to 5 and they have not committed any offence, as alleged. The allegation is that they committed offence under Section 308 of I.P.C., which is the only non bailable offence. But, the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are only contusions, which do not correspond to the nature of alleged assault. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. But he fairly conceded that the injuries on the defacto complainant are only 2 contusions. B.A.No.7856 of 2008 2 On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. But on considering the facts and circumstances, I find that for the purpose of bail, the offence involved in this case can be treated as falling under Section 324 of I.P.C. instead of 308 of I.P.C. The incident occurred as early as on 17.04.2008 and petitioners are not available for arrest. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. On such surrender, the offence involved will be treated as one under Section 324 of I.P.C. instead of 308 of I.P.C. This is only for the purpose of bail, it is made clear. With this observation, the petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac