IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5897 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.405/08 OF VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION .................... APPLICANT: IST ACCUSED ------------------------------- ANEESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. PARVATHI, VELLATT HOUSE, ALTHARA, PUNNAYURKULAM.P.O, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5897 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioner along with three others came in a motor cycle and assaulted the defacto complainant and he sustained grievous injuries. A1 and A3 used sickles for the commission of the offence. Petitioner is the first accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated and that it is improbable that four persons can travel in a motor cycle. In fact, the defacto complainant was returning from a toddy shop and he could not identify any of the accused. He named the first and the third accused, while one of his friends named second and the fourth accused. But, now, all the persons are implicated in the offence. There was an earlier incident in the same night, in a toddy shop and the alleged motive is the said incident. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned to the doctor. BA No.5897/08 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the first accused has allegedly used a sickle for the commission of offence and fracture is also caused to the defacto complainant. His name is mentioned in the First Information Statement itself. The weapon is to be recovered and hence, petitioner is required for interrogation. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the history of alleged cause of injury is not recorded in Malayalam, but, it is recorded in English as “alleged assault”. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that the statement recorded in the wound certificate may be the summary which is recorded in English. I am satisfied that the doctor omitted to record that the allegations made to him in verbatim and hence, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved. Petitioner will be required for interrogation and recovery of weapon and considering the nature of allegations made and injuries sustained in the incident, it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl