IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2010 / 31ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3780 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 555/2010 OF NEDUMANGADU POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------ 1. SAJI, AGED 25 YEARS,S/O.JOSE, KADAMBRAKUZHY VEEDU, PARAKKONAM, MYLAM, ARUVIKKARA, NEDUMANGADU. 2. SANOJ, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SATHEESAN, KADAMBRAKUZHY VEEDU, PARAKKONAM, MYLAM, ARUVIKKARA, NEDUMANGADU. 3. ANU, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.KUMAR,KUZHIVILAKATHU VEEDU, MYLAM, ARUVIKKARA, NEDUMANGADU. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3780 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324, 294(b), 308, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 23.05.2010 at about 3.45 P.M., while the de facto complainant was proceeding in an autorickshaw, he saw petitioner beating up one Shaji by using sticks. He stopped his vehicle and intervened, when de facto complainant was also beaten up, and he sustained injuries. He was hospitalised and thereby, committed the various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant unnecessarily intervened in the matter, while he was going in the auto rickshaw. No serious injuries are sustained by him. The other injured has no grievance and he has not lodged any complaint, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner assaulted de facto complainant and one Shaji using weapons and those are to be recovered. Petitioners are required for custodial B.A. No. 3780 / 2010 2 interrogation. However, the injury sustained by de facto complainant is contusion on the forearm. The auto rickshaw and lorry were also damaged by petitioners, and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, on considering the nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, taking into account, the nature of the injury sustained, the circumstances under which, it was sustained, the site of injury etc., I find that petitioner has a strong and arguable case, in respect of involvement of an offence under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. At the same time, petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from date of receipt of copy of this order and co- operate with the investigation. 2. On such surrender, offence under Section 308 will be treated, as not included, for the purpose of bail. This petition is disposed of accordingly. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln