IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3242 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.566/10 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ELDHOS,MECHERI(H),THRIKKALATHUR PO, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH THE S.I.OF POLICE,MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3242 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under section 326 IPC. According to prosecution, on 2.5.2010 at about 6 pm, petitioner assaulted defacto complainant using stone and inflicted injury on him. He sustained fracture to mandible. Petitioner owed some money from defacto complainant and when he asked to return the money he attacked defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no incident has happened as alleged. Petitioner and defacto complainant were friends. Petitioner was taking bath in a canal and defacto complainant came there. There was a friendly chat. Thereafter defacto complainant turned violent since he had consumed liquor. There was a push and pull. Defacto complainant fell down and sustained injury. Petitioner had informed defacto complainant's relatives about it and he had been taken to hospital and petitioner was also present while he was taken to hospital as evidenced by B.A. No.3242/10 2 FI Statement. It is submitted that petitioner's son-in-law had some quarrel with petitioner thereafter, a complaint is lodged. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that defacto complainant sustained fracture to the mandible and left leg also and this was caused by petitioner as per case diary. 5. On hearing both sides and going through case diary and on considering the serious nature of allegations made, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner will be required for the purpose of interrogation. Petitioner has not substantiated the case put forward by him that incident happened in some other manner. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.