IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 4TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 204/08 OF VELLATHUVAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER -------------------- RAJEEV.S.V., S/O.S.K.VIJAYAN, 23 YEARS SASTHAVILASOM, 2ND MILE PALLIVASASL PO., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. S.I. OF POLICE, VELLATHUVAL POLICE STATION, VELLATHUVAL (CRIME NO.204/2008) PUBLC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5826 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under 452, 294(b), 427, 353 and 324 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1) of PDPP Act. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant, who is a clerk in the Panchayat Office, was assaulted by the petitioner along with his father (first accused) at the Panchayat Office and thereby they committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner's father was a Panchayat President and now a Panchayat Member in the opposition wing. He had taken a room on rent from the Panchayat and in respect of parking of his vehicle in the compound, there was some altercation with the clerical staff of the Panchayat. In the course of this quarrel, the petitioner's father was brutally attacked and he sustained a grevous injury and he lost a tooth. He gave a complaint and a crime was registered against the de facto complainant and two others under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 326 and 427 read with 34 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that since the petitioner's father was attacked, he telephoned his son and he BA.5826/08 2 also rushed to the scene and the father was removed to the hospital. But, the petitioner, who has not committed any offence, who came to the scene only to remove the father to the hospital, is now implicated in the offence. This was done deliberately by the de facto complainant to harass the petitioner. 5. It was also pointed out that though a crime was registered which includes even an offence under Sections 326 IPC, the de facto complainant or any of the co-accused was not arrested by the police. The petitioner's father, who is the first accused in the case was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody though the allegations are less serious in nature compared to those in the other case. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner apprehends harassment and unwarranted detention and hence, this application for anticipatory bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the records, the father made a phone call to the son and he came with an iron rod and assaulted the de facto complainant and committed the various offences. 7. On hearing both sides, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner and hence, the following order is passed: BA.5826/08 3 Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and if any bail application is filed, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.