IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5118 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.427/2008 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION) PETITIONER --------------------------- VIKRAMAN,S/O. LATE KUNHAMBU KAZHI NIVAS, PADINHATTAMKUZHI ANANDASRAM P.O.,HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5118 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and assaulted the defacto complainant. A1 and A2 beat with an iron rod and others with hands. Petitioner is the third accused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a BJP worker and defacto complainant is a CPI(M) worker. Even as per the prosecution case, petitioner has only used his hand, and not any weapon. Petitioner is innocent and he is implicated only because he is a BJP worker. Even though iron rods are allegedly used, the injury sustained is not serious. The details are recorded in the FIR itself and those will sufficiently reveal that only minor injuries are sustained and hence only offence under Section 324 IPC is attracted in this case. Section 307IPC is not attracted, but, the said section is included only to harass the petitioner who is a BJP worker, under BA No.5118/08 2 influence of the defacto complainant, who is a CPI(M) worker, it is submitted. There are various other cases also, but, the offence under Section 324 alone is involved and in this case, offence under Section 307 is included only with a view to harass the petitioner. Hence, if the petitioner is arrested and remanded to judicial custody, it will put him to great hardship, it is submitted 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant sustained lacerated wound on the forehead. The other person also sustained contusion etc. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that on the facts, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. However, in the light of the submissions made, the following observation is made. For the purpose of bail, this case will be treated as one not involving Section 307 IPC. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with investigation. Petition is disposed of accordingly. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl