IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3025 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME No. 646/2010 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ---------------- GEORGE KUTTY, AGED 45, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE S.I OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V. TEK CHAND SRI.AJITH MURALI FOR ADDL.R THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.3025 Of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 452, 326, 324, 427 & 354 of the IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A1) along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted de facto complainant, his son and his wife using deadly weapons. Iron rod was used by the petitioners and injuries were sustained by all the injured. De facto complainant's son sustained fracture to the nasal bone. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a dispute between the de facto complainant and CITU workers in respect of loading and unloading. Since there was some unpleasant talk between the petitioner and de facto complainant in the morning of the date of occurrence, de facto complainant suspected that the petitioner and others committed the offence and filed complaint. Petitioners are innocent of the allegation made. 4. Learned counsel for the de facto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor are heard. This petition is opposed. Learned Bail Application No.3025 Of 2010 2 Public Prosecutor submitted that three persons were injured in the incident. The first accused has used an iron rod and a fracture is sustained by de facto complainant's son. The name of the petitioner is stated in the First Information Statement itself. This was an motivated attack. It was also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that petitioner along with others came to the de facto complainant's house where he was selling live chicken. Petitioner and other persons who came for chicken were abusing each other and the de facto complainant asked them to wait outside and also told them that the chicken would be supplied to their car. This was not to the liking of the de facto complainant and incurated by this, the de facto complainant and his family members were attacked. This petition is opposed. 5. On hearing both sides and going through the Case Diary and the Wound Certificate and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the need for interrogation of the petitioner, recovery of the weapon etc, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv