IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4593 of 2008() ----------------------------- ` CRIME NO.247/2008 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------- 1. SUNIL, S/O.SASIDHARAN, SUNIL VILASAM, OTTAKKAL MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE. 2. RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, RAJEEV BHAVAN, OTTAKKAL MURI, THENMALA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4593 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of August,2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 294(b), 322, 324 and 326 read with section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners, who are accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention, due to previous enmity, assaulted defacto- complainant using iron bar, stone, etc. and inflicted injuries on him, which includes a fracture to the finger. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that defacto-complainant was actually inimical towards 2nd petitioner who is residing in the adjacent property. Branches of trees from his property were hanging to the property of defacto-complainant and he was insisting that the branches should be cut, but that was not done. Thereafter, on the date of occurrence, when 2nd petitioner came in a autorickshaw, driven by 1st accused who is his relative, defacto-complainant came to petitioners and asked them whether you would not cut the branches. Thereafter, he also assaulted 2nd petitioner who is a handi-caped man and in the scuffle, defacto-complainant might have sustained some injuries. BA 4593/08 -2- Petitioners also sustained injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a complaint was lodged by 2nd petitioner's wife stating what transpired, but no action was taken by the police in the matter. 4. The application is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case where petitioners assaulted defacto- complainant and his wife. They sustained injuries also. Defacto- complainant sustained a fracture to his index finger and his wife sustained contused abrasion. It is revealed that both sides have fought against each other and it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On going through the case diary, it is clear that not only defacto-complainant, but his wife also was assaulted and both of them sustained injuries. Wound certificates issued in respect of 2nd petitioner and his wife were produced for perusal. It is seen from the document that as per the allegations made to the doctor, they were pushed and, 2nd petitioner's wife thereby, sustained an abrasion and 2nd petitioner had complaints of pain. From the materials available at present, it is not possible to infer that defacto-complainant was the aggressor and hence, I do not find that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners, BA 4593/08 -3- especially since specific allegations are made against both the petitioners that they had used weapons to inflict injuries, which includes a fracture also. The application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.