IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5974 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.598/08 OF VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- VIJAY @ VIJI, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, PATOLA, PUTUCODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKENCHERRY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5974 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention, wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and assaulted him using stone, knife etc. In the course of the incident, the defacto complainant lost one tooth and also, another tooth was broken. He also sustained other injuries on the head. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are A1 to A3 in the crime and no specific allegations are made against the petitioners. The attack was made by the first accused and there is a counter case filed against the defacto complainant. A crime was registered against the defacto complainant in respect of the same incident under Sections 341, 324 and 294(b) IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the tooth was lost by allegedly hitting with hand BA No.5974/08 2 and no weapon was used as per the allegations. It is also submitted that a knife was used, but, as per the wound certificate, there is only a lacerated wound, which is not possible by a knife. Hence, petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that none of the petitioners have sustained any injury in the incident. In fact, it is an assault on the defacto complainant and grievous injuries were sustained by him. Weapons were also used against him like stone, knife etc. It is submitted that it is not correct to say that A1 alone assaulted. A1 stabbed the defacto complainant with his knife and others assaulted him with stone and the tooth was lost in such attack. 5. It is also not correct to say that the investigation against the first accused is dropped, as submitted. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that the stone was used to hit the defacto complainant and the tooth was lost in such hit. The allegation is that a weapon looking like a knife was used and hence, merely because, the doctor stated that it is a lacerated wound, it may not be proper, at this stage, to conclude that such injury cannot be caused like a weapon which was used in the BA No.5974/08 3 offence. The weapon is yet to be recovered. But, the accused have not co-operated with the investigation so far. Only after questioning the doctor with reference to the weapon, a clear picture will be obtained, regarding the cause of injury. 6. On hearing both sides, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in an offence of this nature. The petitioners will be required for the purpose of an effective investigation, interrogation and recovery. Taking into consideration all the submissions made by both sides, I do not find that the alleged discrepancies pointed out in the medical evidence to be sufficient to grant the relief. The incident occurred as early as in August 2008. Petitioners have not co-operated with the investigation so far. Petitioners are therefore directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation within seven days from today. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl