IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5587 of 2008() ----------------------------- CP.51/2008 of J.M.F.C.,VADAKKANCHERRY CRIME NO.17/06 OF WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 4TH ACCUSED: -------------------------------- RENISH, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN, MANALAMKUNATH HOUSE, KARAYAD P.O. THEKUMKARA, WADAKANCHERY. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5587 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 308 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner, along with other four accused, assaulted the de facto complainant by using sword, iron rod etc. and caused fracture to the leg and a part of his small finger was lost. There were injuries on other parts of the body also, including on the head. The petitioner was carrying a sword in his hand. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. In fact, the petitioner was assaulted by the de facto complainant and a crime was registered as Crime No.16/06 and he also sustained injuries as revealed by the medical certificate. There was total amputation of little finger at middle phalanx level. This case is only a counter blast to the other case, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner participated in the offence and he was also using weapon. He is required for recovery of the weapon. BA.5587/08 2 Injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are also grievous in nature. Hence, anticipatory bail may not be granted to him, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that grievous hurt was caused to the de facto complainant. The petitioner was also involved in the offence, as per the materials in the case diary. He was implicated as per the First Information Statement itself. The mere existence of a counter case is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. The petitioner's interrogation will be required for recovery of weapon. The incident happened as early as in 2006 and the petitioner, who is the fifth accused, could not be arrested so far, even after expiry of two years. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.