IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7926 of 2008() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.439/2008 OF KATTAKADA POLICE STATION .......... PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED NO.1 & 2 -------------------- 1. PRASANTH @ ABHILASH, S/O.APPICHERUKKAN, AGED 19, PRASANTH BHAVAN, UPPANACHANKALA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, PANNIYODE P.O,., MANNOORKARA VILLAGE NEDUMANGADU TALUK, 2. SAROJAM, W/O.APPICHERUKKAN, AGED 47, PRASANTH BHAVAN, UPPANACHANKALA, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU PANNIYODE PO., MANNOORKARA VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7926 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 308 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 and 2), in furtherance of common intention, assaulted defacto complainant, who is the father of first petitioner and the husband of second petitioner. Chopper was used for the assault. Second petitioner pelted stones also at the defacto complainant. This was done, since the defacto complainant did not agree to defacto complainant's decision to assign the property by the second petitioner in favour of first petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners were deserted by the defacto complainant and thereafter, second petitioner was looking after her children. But defacto complainant came home drunk and assaulted second petitioner and first petitioner intervened and some incident happened. No serious injuries are sustained by B.A.No.7926 of 2008 2 defacto complainant and hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a chopper was used and it is to be recovered. It is also submitted that defacto complainant sustained injuries by cutting the chopper. On hearing both sides, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, on going through the wound certificate and other records, I find that offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. can be treated as one falling under Section 324 of I.P.C. for the purpose of bail. Petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation, in which event, the offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. will be treated as one under Section 324 of I.P.C. for the purpose of bail. With this observation, this petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac