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. 586 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.33/09 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION APPLICANT/ACCUSED : --------------------------- FRANCIS, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, THAMARAYOOR, VAKA P.O., CHELOOR, ELAVALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.586 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 506(i) and 308 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner along with second accused in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him. The first accused used an iron block and inflicted injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and the second accused are brothers. Petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged. There was some altercation and an incident occurred in the course of a festival in a church and the altercation started since the first accused's fiance was teased by the defacto complainant and nothing serious had occurred to attract offence under Section 308 of I.P.C., it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is the first accused and he used an iron block to inflict injury and the defacto complainant sustained injury near the eye brow, which was sutured. B.A.No.586 of 2009 2 Petitioner is involved in other crimes and the weapon used is to be recovered and hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained, as revealed from the wound certificate, I find that for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. could be treated as one under Section 324 of I.P.C. In the circumstances, the following order is passed : Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer or the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. In the event of surrender, for the purpose of bail, the offence included under Section 308 of I.P.C. will be treated as one falling under Section 324 of I.P.C. It is made clear that this B.A.No.586 of 2009 3 observation is made only for the purpose of bail. The petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac