IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5504 of 2008() ----------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 770/2008 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS: ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. SHAJ KUMAR @ SHAJI, S/O. VIJAYAN, VATAKKUT HOUSE, KARUPPADANNA.P.O, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESAN, S/O. DASAN, THEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUPPADANNA.P.O, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THALHATH, S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA, PAMBINEZHATH HOUSE, KARUPPADANNA.P.O, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5504 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 326 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners 1 to 3, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the de facto complainant and assaulted him. An iron block was used and fracture was caused to the bone below right eye. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners and de facto complainant were returning from a house where there was some function in connection with marriage. While so, there was some altercation between the two. Both of them were in drunken state and nothing as alleged had taken place. Petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant was not drunk as alleged, as revealed from the wound certificate. There is nothing to show that he was intoxicated or that there was smell of alcohol. He sustained [B.A.No.5504/08] 2 fracture. Weapon was also used. Petitioners are required for interrogation and recovery of weapon. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of allegations made and the investigation required, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The incident happened as early as on 16.8.2008 and the petitioners could be not arrested so far. Hence, petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer or before the Magistrate court concerned within one week from today, and co- operate with the investigation. With this direction, the petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.