IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2552 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 177/10 OF POTHENCODE POLICIE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- LATHEESH, AGED 36 YEARS, DEV NIVAS, AYANIMOODU, POTHENCODE.P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POTHENCODE POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No. 2552 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner owed Rs.42,000/- to the defacto complainant. While defacto complainant went to the petitioner's shop to get the money, he was assaulted with wooden stick and injuries including fracture of nasal bone were inflicted. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and defacto complainant had some difference of opinion. There was a quarrel between the parties at petitioner's shop. There was a scuffle also. Both of them fell down and defacto complainant sustained fracture. In connection with the said incident petitioner had lodged complaint and FIR is registered as Crime No.185/10. B.A. No.2552/10 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there is allegation that defacto complainant was beaten with a wooden stick and fracture was caused to nasal bone. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that two cases are registered in respect of the same incident. But, existence of two crimes by itself is not a ground to extend benefit U/s.438 Cr.P.C. However, I make it clear that consideration for grant of bail u/s.437Cr.P.C and anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C are different from each other. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.