IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3022 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.195/10 OF IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR. (S): PETITIONER ------------------------------ 1. UMMER, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 33 YEARS PUTHENPURA HOUSE, IRIKKUR PO IRIKKUKR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. UMMER @ UMMERKUTTY, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, AGED 28 YEARS, KINAKUL HOUSE,PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. VAHID, S/O.MEMI, AGED 23 YEARS, KINAKUL HOUSE, PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO, IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. SIYAD, S/O.KASIM, AGED 28 YEARS A.P.HOUSE, PERUVALATHUPARAMBA PO, IRIKKUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE THROUGH S.H.O.IRIKKUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DT REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3022 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 26th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant and others were going by the side of a road on 27.4.2010, while a car, in which petitioners were proceeding, hit against defacto complainant and he fell down. Thereafter, the persons who were in the car came out and attacked defacto complainant and the persons who accompanied the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the incident occurred on a hartal day. The defacto complainant and others were supporters of hartal. Petitioners were proceeding in a car for purchasing some articles. The car was blocked and petitioners were forcibly taken out of the car by defacto complainant and others and injuries were inflicted on them. A complaint was given to the police, based on which a crime was registered as Crime No.194/10, on the basis of a statement given by first accused. In fact, the defacto complainant and others hit the accused with stone and they had sustained injuries. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor BA NO.3022/10 2 submitted that considering the nature of the allegations made, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. On hearing both sides and on perusing the case diary, it is seen that defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital and he disclosed the cause of injury to doctor and he was found to have sustained contusions and also dental fracture. Another person was also injured and he also sustained various injuries in the assault. As far as another injured is concerned, he had traumatic rupture of the tympanic membrane. However, though petitioners are alleged to have sustained injuries, there is nothing on record to indicate the same. 5. On going through the documents and case diary, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The case diary reveals prima facie case in favour of prosecution that petitioners allegedly committed the offences. The mere existence of a case and counter is not sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs