IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1866 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.114/2010 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ PRASAD KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN ACHARI, PRASAD BHAVAN, PARAYANKODE P.O., KALANJOOR VILLAGE & ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- 1. THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOODAL POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1866 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 447, 323, 324, 308 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 17.3.2010, at about 10.30 p.m., petitioner (A4) along with other accused attacked defacto complainant and others with a tube light and thereby inflicted injuries on him. He also caused damage to the stage erected by the temple committee and caused a loss of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some quarrel between two groups in a temple, but offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code is not involved. No injury is sustained by defacto complainant and the said section is included only for the purpose of causing harm to accused, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners had trespassed into the temple premises and assaulted defacto complainant and temple committee members and also caused damage to the stage. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the BA NO.1866/10 2 wound certificate, I find that the wound certificate only reveals tenderness suffered by the injured. Though tube light is allegedly used for the offence, there are no external injuries. In the above circumstances, I find force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for petitioner regarding involvement of Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. However, considering various aspects and the nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed : (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co- operate with the investigation. (ii) On such surrender, in case petitioner is arrested, offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code will be treated as not involved. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs