IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5524 of 2008() ------------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.622/2008 OF THE THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. LAIJU.K.N, S/O.SANTHAMMA, AGED 26 YEARS, KAMMATTIYERUKUNNU, CHUNGAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.K.VIPIN @ KUTTAN, KAYYELIKUNNU, CHUNGAM, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THAMARASSERY OF POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5524 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners in furtherance of common intention allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant with a soda bottle and he sustained injuries on the forehead. When an attempt was made to hit him on the stomach with a soda bottle, he evaded. By the time, people came there. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are autorickshaw drivers. The defacto complainant, who is a police constable attempted to get into the autorickshaw in a drunken state which was opposed by petitioners. Therefore, there was a quarrel and petitioners sustained injuries. But, being minor injuries, they did not go to the doctor or give any complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that offence under Section 308 will not be attracted in this case. But, the said Section is included only for harassing the BA No.5524/08 2 petitioners, the defacto complainant being a police constable. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant sustained injury on the forehead and it is of a considerable nature as revealed from the wound certificate. The allegation that the defacto complainant was in a drunken state is negatived by the wound certificate wherein there is no observation regarding even smell of alcohol. There is nothing to substantiate the counter allegations made. The specific allegation made to the doctor was that petitioner was assaulted with a soda bottle and names of the accused were also mentioned to the doctor. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. But, in the light of the submissions made regarding involvement of Section 308, I would observe that if any bail application is filed under Section 437 Crl.P.C., it shall be disposed of treating that offence under Section 324 IPC is involved instead of Section 308 IPC. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl