IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6384 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2632/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM (CRIME NO. 501/08 OF PATHANAMPURAM POLICE STATION) PEPTITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- VIKAS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHARAKKARA VEEDU, PUNNALA P.O., PATHANAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.501/2008 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION ) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 6384 of 2008 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with two others committed house trespass into the house of de facto complainant and assaulted them by using reaper and inflicted injuries on them. The de facto complainant, his wife and mother-in-law were injured. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a dispute between two families in respect of construction of latrine and petitioner's family members insisted that it shall be constructed only after constructing a compound wall. On this, these was a quarrel. Petitioner's father was assaulted by de facto complainant and he sustained injuries. Petitioner was also beaten up by de facto complainant and his mother. Both of them sustained injuries. Petitioner, his mother and father were also [B.A.No.6384/08] 2 hospitalised. In the meantime, de facto complainant went to police station and gave statement based on which present crime is registered. To his knowledge, de facto complainant has not sustained any serious injuries, it is submitted. Petitioner is a boy aged 19 years studying in the Polytechnic and he may be granted bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is true that it is not correct to say that de facto complainant and others did not sustain any injuries. De facto complainant sustained as many as 5 injuries which includes contused abrasion on the thigh and also laceration on the lower lip. De facto complainant also had bleeding from nose and they had gone to hospital. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the case diary, it appears that there was prima facie assault by both sides against each other. The case diary also reveals that there are independent witnesses who have given statement that following a quarrel, petitioners went inside the kitchen of de facto complainant and assaulted de facto complainant using reaper. De facto complainant was pushed down and there was push and pull among the parties. In a case where both sides [B.A.No.6384/08] 3 attacked each other and inflicted injuries using weapons, I am not satisfied that it is proper to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstances are pointed out to extend the benefit under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him in accordance with law. 7. It is however made clear that considerations for grant of anticipatory bail are different from considerations while refusing bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. t is also made clear that request for anticipatory bail by itself also cannot be a ground to refuse bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is at liberty to raise the same contentions before the Magistrate Court, while filing application under Section 437 Cr.P.C. With this direction and observation, this petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. [B.A.No.6384/08] 4