IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3382 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.407/10 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM .................... (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O.DAMODARAN, PATHIYIL HOUSE, KAIPPALLI, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.TOM JOSE (PADINJAREKARA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3382 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 15.5.2010 at about 2.30 p.m., while defacto complainant was engaged in repairing street light, as a public servant, on the allegation that he caused traffic block, petitioner questioned him and thereafter, he assaulted defacto complainant using stone and caused grievous hurt to him. He also abused defacto complainant in filthy language in public. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a case and counter case. Petitioner was admitted in the hospital within 10 minutes of the incident and Annexure 3 is the wound certificate issued to him, which shows that he had contusions and lacerated injury. It is also submitted that at the time of admission in the hospital, he alleged that he was beaten up at the M.E.S. Junction by four persons. The defacto complainant is the aggressor and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA NO.3382/10 2 submitted that defacto complainant, who is a public servant, while discharging his official duty, was assaulted by petitioner using stone and he sustained fracture to the mandible. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that petitioner and defacto complainant sustained injuries. As per the allegations both sides caused injuries against each other. From the submissions made, it cannot be concluded at this stage that defacto complainant is the aggressor. Petitioner has not made out any ground to extend the relief under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mere registration of two crimes in respect of same incident or two incidents, which occurred at close intervals and the fact that both sides sustained injuries by themselves are not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. However, it is made clear that considerations of anticipatory bail are different from considerations for grant of regular bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs