IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3287 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.133/08 OF KURATHIKADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------ 1. SAMUEL GEORGE @ GEORGE SAMUEL KIZHAKKEYATTATHU, THANNIKUNNEL, VETTIYAR VILLAGE. 2. JOSE SAM JOHN, S/O.K.S.JOY KIZHAKKEYATTATHUPUTHEN VEEDU THANNIKKUNNEL, VETTIYAR VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURATHIKAD POLICE STATION, KURATHIKAD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR FOR ADDL.R2 SMT.A.SALINI LAL FOR ADDL.R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.3287 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 ORDER Petition for bail. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in crime No.133/2008 of Kurathikad Police Station. Petitioners are in custody from 12.4.2005 onwards. According to the prosecution, on 12.4.2008, at about 7 p.m., while the defacto complainant was sitting in his house, a car stopped in front of the house and the second petitioner came to his house and called the defacto complainant to the car wherein the first petitioner was sitting for talking about a dispute. When he reached near the car first petitioner came out with a sword stick and inflicted a cut injury on his head and uttered that he will do away with the defacto complainant. Second petitioner kicked on the stomach and he fell down. The people of the locality intervened while the petitioners drew away the car. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are totally innocent of the allegations made. They BA No.3287/08 2 are falsely implicated in the crime. It was pointed out that though as per the prosecution case, a sword stick was used, the injury sustained by the defacto complainant is a lacerated injury on the top of his head. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant was the mediator in a transaction between the first petitioner and one Ramachandran. Even as per the prosecution case, petitioners had gone to the house of the defacto complainant for settling a dispute and they had no intention to do any offence. The petitioners approached the defacto complainant for mediation in connection with a sand selling deal and no offence is committed as alleged. 4. Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the defacto complainant also were heard. Learned public prosecutor opposes this bail application and submitted that 5 crimes are registered against the petitioners. (crime Nos.107/05, 271/06, 37/06, 220/06 and 364/06). It is submitted that out of the five crimes, three were settled between the parties and in the two other cases accused was acquitted. 5. Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submitted that the petitioners are influential persons and in one BA No.3287/08 3 of the crimes mentioned earlier, at the influence of the police, even the charge sheet was not laid and a writ petition had to be filed and a direction is given by this court to the DYSP to be present in person. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is not aware of pendency of any such case. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that the nature of the injury sustained by the defacto complainant and the possibility of such injury being caused by the alleged weapon and the manner in which it is caused etc. are matters to be decided at the time of evidence. But, on considering all the facts stated above, I find that it is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl