IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 124 of 2009() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.1067/2008 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. MATHUKUTTY P.M., CHENIYEL HOUSE, KARAVALOOR P.O. PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. MARYKUTTY, CHENIYEL HOUSE, KARAVALOOR P.O. PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 124 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 452, 323, 326 and read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners who are husband and wife committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant, who is the brother of 1st accused, and assaulted him and committed various offences. Jacky liver was used for beating de facto complainant and he sustained a fracture. The incident occurred on 26-9-2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no such incident has happened. The 1st accused and de facto complainant are brothers and there is a dispute between them. De facto complainant did not sustain any fracture, as revealed from the accident-cum-wound certificate Annexure-II. It only reveals that there was pain and swelling on the left hand. As per the history and allegation of cause of injury in Annexure-II, two persons identifiable by sight committed the offence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the serious nature of allegations made, this is not fit to grant anticipatory bail to 1st accused. The 1st accused is the person who beat the de facto complainant and BA 124/09 -2- inflicted the injury. Though, as per wound certificate, there is only pain and swelling, in the discharge certificate, it is clearly mentioned that the injured was admitted in the hospital on 26-9- 2008 and there was a fracture. Weapon used for the offence is to be recovered. Considering the limited role of the 2nd accused, who is woman, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to her, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to 1st accused, but anticipatory bail can be granted to 2nd accused on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) The 1st petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by 1st petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. 3) The 2nd petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from BA 124/09 -3- today and shall be released on bail, on her executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions:- i) She shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co- operate with the investigation. ii) She shall not intimidate or influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail. This petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.