IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5030 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.375/2008 OF KASABA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL JALEEL.M., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALIKOYA, RESIDING AT ANGADIPAADAM, KAALOOR ROAD, P.O.MANKAVU, CALICUT. 2. ABDUL SALAM.M. @ SALAM KOYA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALI KOYA, ANGADIPAADAM, KAALOOR ROAD, P.O.MANKAVU, CALICUT. 3. K.P.BASHEER, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIPOKKER, MOORIYATHU ARAKKAL, KAALOOR ROAD, P.O.MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 4. AHAMMED KOYA.M.A. @ SALI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.ALIKOYA, MOORIYATHU ARAKKAL, KAALOOR ROAD, P.O.MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 5. M.A.SHAMNAD, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.AHAMMED KOYA, MOORIYATHU ARAKKAL, KAALOOR ROAD, P.O.MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASABA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5030 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341 and 326 read with Section 149 IPC. According to the prosecution, petitioners trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and assaulted him, using wooden stick and he sustained grievous injury. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners used to park a lorry in the vacant place situated adjacent to the defacto complainant's property. This was not liked by him. There was an altercation on account of this. Thereafter, the defacto complainant and others assaulted the third petitioner therein and his wife. On a statement given by the third petitioner's wife, a crime was registered as 376/08 before the same police station. The incident happened in the house of the third petitioner. There is a case and counter case and the defacto complainant is the aggressor, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that BA No.5030/08 2 the defacto complainant was hospitalised first in the Government Hospital and no injury was noted on the defacto complainant. Thereafter, he was discharged and then admitted in the Medical College Hospital. The defacto complainant was drunk. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners, it is submitted. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the incident happened in the courtyard of the house of the defacto complainant and not in the third petitioner's property. The defacto complainant sustained a fracture to the jaw and he was under treatment at the Medical College Hospital. It is also submitted that a wooden stick was used by the first petitioner for committing the offence and the recovery is to be effected. The incident happened as early as on 2.7.2008 and the petitioners could not be arrested so far. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, particularly wound certificate, it is seen that the defacto complainant was admitted in the Government Hospital first from where he was referred to the Medical College Hospital (Surgical Casualty). It is recorded in the certificate issued from BA No.5030/08 3 Government Hospital that the injured was responding to pain, but, he was not responding to call. Small laceration was found on his body and it is also recorded therein “R/O head injury”. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was treated at the Medical College Hospital and it was found that there was a fracture on left neck of condyle. 7. The incident occurred on 2.7.2008 and the defacto complainant was in the Medical College Hospital on 3.7.2008 itself. Though the petitioners content that injury was caused to the third petitioner and his wife, it is recorded at the bottom of the FIR (Annexure II) which is registered on the complaint made by third petitioner's wife that there was no external injuries to him, though complaint of pain is made. 8. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and I am satisfied that the petitioners are required for custodial interrogation and recovery. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl