IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6422 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.382/08 OF KAVANADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VINESH KUMAR, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, VINOD BHAVAN, KAVUMMOOLE, CHENNANPARA, VITHURA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6422 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner assaulted de facto complainant's son using a knife on 23.8.2008 and inflicted injuries on him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the alleged incident occurred on 23.8.2008 and a private complaint was filed after nine days of the incident. A crime was registered on the basis of a private complaint. It is submitted that originally offences under Sections 307 and 392 IPC were also included, but later, those Sections were deleted. It is also submitted that the injured and petitioner are co-workers and they were residing together. On the date of occurrence, there was a quarrel and de facto complainant had attempted to stab petitioner with a knife. There was a push and pull and both sides sustained injuries. Therefore, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injured was in the hospital from 23.8.2008 till 31.8.2008. After discharge, it came to his notice that no crime was BA.6422/08 2 registered. Hence, a private complaint was filed. The injured had sustained a penetrating wound on the abdomen and a penetrating wound on the ear. Knife has to be recovered and it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. There are only bare assertion that de facto complainant had attacked petitioner and he sustained injury etc. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the facts stated by learned Public Prosecutor, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of weapon allegedly used by petitioner. Incident happened as early as on 23.8.2008 and petitioner has not surrendered before the court or before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without any delay. Whether petitioner surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.