IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2008 / 2ND ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3833 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.44/08 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER ----------------- K.SOMAN, S/O.KUNJURAMAN, PATTIYOTTU CHARUVILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, KARAVALOOR PO., KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM' 2. S.I. OF POLICE, PUNALUR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 3833 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has allegedly inflicted injury on the defacto complainant and committed the offences and for the commission of offence he had used a chopper. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an employee in the B.S.N.L and he is a law abiding person. He has not committed any offence as alleged. The defacto complainant and others came to him and an assault occurred between them in connection with the property. The petitioner resisted disposal of a property where his uncle was cremated. But, the defacto complainant alleged that the property belonged to the maid servant claiming herself to be the adopted daughter of the deceased uncle. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the uncle died intestate. This is a falsely foisted case to grab the property. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as many as three incised wounds were sustained by BA.3833/08 2 the defacto complainant and a weapon was also used and it is to be recovered and hence, petitioner's presence would be required for interrogation and recovery, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in a case where recovery is to be effected and the petitioner is required for interrogation, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.