IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2010 / 7TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3049 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.683/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA .................... (CRIME NO.171/2010 OF PULPALLY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- P.A.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN, PAMBANAL HOUSE, CHETTAPPALAM, PULPALLY POST, PADICHIRA VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PULPALLY POLICE STATION, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. * 3. SRI.V.K.SASHI, S/O KUNJAPPAN, VATTAPPARAYIL HOUSE, SASHIMALA P.O, KAPPISET, PULPALLY, WAYANAD DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND SRI.VINOD.V (EDAPPUNATHIL) FOR ADDL.R3 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: * IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL THIRD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 18/06/2010 IN CRL. M.P 3272/2010. K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3049 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 307 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 12/04/2010, at about 6:30 p.m, petitioner attacked de facto complainant with intension to cause his death and inflicted injuries on him using a chopper and thereby attempted to commit his murder. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is aged 70 years. According to him, petitioner's sister died on 10/04/2010 and he was coming back after attending the funeral. He was unarmed. It is the de facto complainant who had attacked petitioner. Weapon was carried by de facto complainant. Weapon is already recovered. May be some scuffle occurred and in the scuffle, some injuries were sustained by de facto complainant. Petitioner is questioned by police. It is also submitted that Annexure B is the medical report which shows that petitioner had also sustained injuries in the incident. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that there was a mediation between petitioner and de facto complainant by the intervention of panchayat authorities the matter is settled. The de facto complainant is also impleaded. Both sides would B.A No.3049 OF 2010 2 agree that the matter is settled and de facto complainant has no grievance now against petitioner. In such circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that weapon was used by petitioner himself. It was also pointed out that petitioner has not sustained even a minor injury though he is stated to be 70 years and unarmed. But, as far as de facto complainant is concerned, the wound certificate issued to him will reveal as many as seven serious injuries on his body. Even his pinna was cut into two pieces and there were other injuries also on the neck. There are deep cut injuries on his body. On of the injuries sustained is a cut injury which is 18 cm. long. De facto complainant was hospitalised for a period of ten days. It is also submitted that de facto complainant narrowly escaped from death and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere fact the the accused and de facto complainant compromised may not be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that the main ground on which petitioner seeks anticipatory bail is a settlement entered into between petitioner and de facto complainant. It has come out during the arguments that there are other criminal cases between the parties. But, the mere fact that a settlement is entered into B.A No.3049 OF 2010 3 between the parties does not persuade me to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. Offence under Section 307 IPC is a serious offence and it is not compoundable and it cannot be disposed by a court merely on filing of a petition for compounding. If anticipatory bail is granted in cases of this nature on the ground that the matter is settled, , it will send a wrong message to the public. I am of view that in the larger interest of the society, the discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C may not be exercised in cases involving grave offences, merely on the ground that the matter is settled, if the allegation made are serious in nature. 7. It is to be noted that though the incident happened on 12/04/2010, as per Annexure B, petitioner was examined by doctor only after two days. As per the said certificate, no injury was sustained by petitioner. Even though according to petitioner, he was unarmed but it was the de facto complainant who was armed, it was the de facto complainant who sustained serious injuries and petitioner who is aged 70 years did not sustain any injury. Taking all the above facts into consideration, I am not satisfied that petitioner deserves discretionary remedy of anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vdv