IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3502 of 2010() ----------------------------- Crime No.577/2010 of Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta District PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3, & 4: ----------------------------------------- 1. JOHNSON, AGED 37 YEARS, KOLLANTAYYIL, KARUVATTA, ADOOR. 2. JOHNSON, KALLEP, KARUVATTA, PEIRNGANAD, ADOOR. 3. NJANASEELAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.LUKOSE, SAJI BHAVANAM, NALPATHINAYIRAPADI, KARUVATTA MURI, PEIRNGANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3502 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This Petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 326 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (A2 to A4) along with first accused assaulted de facto complainant on 05.05.2010 using iron rod etc and caused fracture to the hand and thereby committed the offences alleged. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. In fact, de facto complainant had come to the property of first accused and assaulted fourth accused and a crime was registered against the de facto complainant for offences under Sections 447, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, on the complaint made by the 4th accused. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the case diary, second accused used iron rod and beat the de facto complainant B.A. No. 3502 of 2010 2 and caused a fracture to the right hand. The second accused is the first petitioner herein. The iron rod is not so far recovered. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The mere registration of a crime against de facto complainant by itself may not be a ground for getting anticipatory bail. The petitioners could not point out any exceptional circumstances for granting anticipatory bail. The petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln