IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 492 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.2223/2008 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ............. PETITIONER(S) ACCUSED -------------------------- K.T.PADMANABHAN, S/O.CHOYI, AGED 47 YEAR KUNIYIL THAZHA HOUSE, PUTHUPPANAM PO, NEAR S.P.OFFICE VADAGARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. MANGALAYA MEENCHIRA ROAD, PONNEKKARA,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.N.SUNIL JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 492 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner assaulted de facto complainant using a stick following an altercation on 1.11.2008 at 11.30 pm and he sustained a fracture to the arm. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was an altercation between petitioner and de facto complainant on 1.9.2008 and no injury was sustained by de facto complainant at that time. Petitions were given by both parties to the police on the same day and the matter was talked over in the police station and it was settled. After 13 days, de facto complainant has given the present complaint and a crime is registered. Petitioner is not answerable for the fracture sustained and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, but the delay is explained by BA.492/09 2 stating that the delay is caused because de facto complainant had gone to the house from the hospital. De facto complainant had sustained a fracture on the arm and he was examined by the doctor. 5. On hearing both sides and on perusing the case diary, it is seen that de facto complainant had gone to the doctor on 2.11.2008 at 7.10 am with history or trauma and later, he went to the doctor on 4.11.2008 at 8.30 am and made a complaint of assault on 1.11.2008 at 11.30 pm and at that time x-ray was taken and it was found that there is a fracture. The explanation for the delay is that he had gone from the hospital straight to his house. 13 days are taken for giving the complaint. It is seen from the First Information Statement that petitioner is working as a clerk with an advocate. Considering the above facts, I think, it is only just and proper that anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner and hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned, on the following conditions: BA.492/09 3 i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer within four days from the date of release and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed thereafter. iii). Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.