IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3302 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.862/2010 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED A1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. SUNDARESAN,AGED 57 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN, MUKALUVILA VEEDU,VELANKONAM MURI,KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ANIL,AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.SUNDARESAN, MUKALUVILA VEEDU,VELANKONAM MURI,KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. ANEESH,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.SUNDARESAN, MUKALUVILA VEEDU,VELANKONAM MURI,KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No. 3302 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 332, 352 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant who is a line-man in the Electricity Board went to the accused's house along with another line-man on receiving some complaint from the de facto complainant. On reaching there, the de facto complainant picked up a quarrel stating that the de facto complainant was late to reach the house and petitioners assaulted the de facto complainant and inflicted injuries on him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are false. De facto complainant came in a drunken state and abused first accused's wife and there was some quarrel. De facto complainant fell down and sustained injuries and petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that de facto complainant sustained injuries and he is stated to be assaulted by the petitioners. There is nothing on Crl.M.C No.1584 OF 2010 2 record to support the counter allegations made. It was also pointed out that the de facto complainant had made a complaint to his higher officials and the complaint was forwarded to the police by the higher officials. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and in the absence of any materials to support the counter allegations and the fact that no complaint is made to the de facto complainant's higher officials, I do not think this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv