IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4918 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.342/2008 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) PETITIONER:4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- VINOD, AGED 27 YRS, S/O. RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, K.R. PURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4918 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, on 22.2.2008, the defacto complainant and two sons attacked the first accused and there was a crime registered in respect of that incident. As a retaliation to it, the present crime was committed by A1 to A4. On a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, a crime is registered under Sections 323, 341 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. He sustained fracture. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the fourth accused and he is not specifically named in the First Information Statement. He is from the same locality and the omission will indicate that the petitioner was not involved. It is also pointed out that even if the prosecution allegation is admitted, the petitioner only assaulted by using hands and there is no corresponding injury also. The only person who used the weapon (iron rod) is the first accused. It is also submitted that the second accused was granted anticipatory BA No.4918/08 2 bail by this Court as per order dated 9.7.2008 in B.A.No.4124/08. Learned counsel for petitioner also added that the motive for the crime stated in the FI statement is that the defacto complainant was attacked only because he is an office bearer of the temple committee. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this crime was committed as a retaliation to an earlier crime. It is true that in the FI statement, it was stated that the defacto complainant was attacked as an office bearer of the temple committee but, the involvement of the petitioner and the motive have been brought to light in the investigation. A crime was also registered in connection with the attack on the first accused on an earlier date. The witnesses have stated that the petitioner was also involved. It is also submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to the second accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances, since father's name, avocation and locality stated in the First Information Statement did not tally with the actual details. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim any benefit, on the strength of the anticipatory bail granted to the second accused. It is also pointed out that the BA No.4918/08 3 defacto complainant has sustained a fracture and the offence was committed in furtherance of common intention. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the offence committed, particularly, since the petitioner's involvement was revealed from the investigation conducted, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Though the petitioner would content that he is the person from the locality, there is nothing on record to show that he was known to the defacto complainant earlier. The details can be revealed at the time of evidence. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl