IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2381 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.289/2010 OF KADUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SURESH.S, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SEKHARAN NAIR.C.N, NALANDA BHAVAN,NNJEEZHOOR, VADAKKE NIRAPPU.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 2381 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused used to block the drain situated in front of his compound and it caused inconvenience to the de facto complainant's residence in the nearby property and complaint was also given in respect since there was water logging. But, on the date of occurrence, 12.04.2010 first accused brought some metal articles to his compound of his property and those were being unloaded for making some permanent construction so that water logging will be permanent. At that time, the de facto complainant's wife and his family members went to the first accused to prevent the unloading. The workers stopped unloading, but petitioner started unloading the materials by himself which was attempted to be obstructed. Petitioner then beat the de facto complainant's wife with a spade and he sustained serious injuries and a complaint lodged and crime was registered under Sections 324 and 326 of B.A. No. 2381 of 2010 2 the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that a reading of complaint itself shows that the de facto complainant and her family members including male members themselves are the aggressors and they were causing obstruction to the unloading of the materials, which are necessary for the petitioner. It is true that there was some dispute in respect of surplus water being discharged to the de facto complainant's property. Petitioner is residing in properties situated nearby. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant's wife, who is aged 44 years sustained very serious injuries ie, “fracture frontal Bone with extension to cribriform plate and both orbital roofs”, as evidenced by the discharge summary. She was first admitted in the Medical College Hospital and referred to Amritha Hospital and she was in the I.C.U for a long time. Petitioner has no right to act in the manner as done by him and caused fracture to forehead of a woman using spade. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of self defence in the circumstance under which the incident happened. There is no case for the petitioner B.A. No. 2381 of 2010 3 that he was assaulted by de facto complainant or any one, who was present along with him. Weapon used for the offence is also not recovered. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor particularly, on going through the medical report. There is no case for the petitioner that the de facto complainant's wife had, in any manner attacked him or caused any injury to him in the manner. No counter case is registered also. Petitioner will be required for interrogation and recovery. In the above circumstances, I find no ground to grant anticipatory bail and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not police is at liberty to arrest and proceed in accordance with law. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln