IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4725 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------ JOHNSON, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, PALLIPPARAMBIL, MOLAMPILLY, KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANITHA CELL, CITY POLICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARAPPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.4725 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of the petitioner's brother and assaulted his brother and wife. A crime is registered on the basis of the statement given by the petitioner's brother under Section 452, 323 and 324 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was some dispute in connection with leakage of septic tank situated in the property of the defacto complainant. Petitioner's property is situated adjacent to his brother's property. The petitioner's brother allegedly assaulted the petitioner and he was hospitalized, as evidenced by Annexure A1. In the course of this quarrel, the defacto complainant's wife also came to the scene and she sustained injury when the bricks fell on to her. The allegation to the contrary are absolutely wrong, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed by the learned Public B.A.4725/2008 2 Prosecutor. He submitted that there is a house trespass and the defacto complainant and his wife were also injured. It is also pointed out that the petitioner had used a wooden stick which is yet to be recovered. The petitioner's presence would be necessary for the purpose of recovery of the weapon, it is submitted. On hearing both sides I am satisfied that the petitioner would be required for custodial interrogation and for the recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the crime. Moreover, if the case of the petitioner is accepted, this is a case where there was an assault against each other and both sides were injured. I am satisfied that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac