IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 430 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME 224/07 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SUNNY, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, CHALUNILATHU HOUSE, KAYANAD KARA, MARADI VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.224 OF 2007 OF RAMAMANGALAM POLICE STATION). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` B.A. No. 430 OF 2008 A ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for regular bail. Petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 307 and 324 IPC. The alleged incident took place on 9.12.07. The petitioner is the sole accused in the crime. He is alleged to have attacked the victim with a dangerous weapon - a long chopper, resulting in the chopping off of the forearm of the injured. The de facto complainant and another also have suffered injuries but those injuries are minor in nature. It is the case of the prosecution that the assault was on account of prior animosity. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. He was not the aggressor. He was only the victim of the aggression. He had purchased an item of property in the locality. The de facto complainant is a very influential person. The principal injured and the de facto complainant are closely related, they being uncle and nephew. The retaining of wall made BA.430/08 : 2 : in the petitioner's property was threatened to be demolished by the de facto complainant and the injured. On getting that information, the petitioner had reached the scene of the crime. There was a push and pull and in the melee, the injuries were suffered by the victim. The petitioner was well with in his right of private defence to deter the attack on his property. In any view of the matter, the petitioner, who has remained in custody from 3.1.08, may now be enlarged on bail, it is prayed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the crime in question is a harsh and gruesome one. The investigation is not complete. The forearm of the victim was chopped off. The petitioner had deliberately come to the scene armed with dangerous weapon. It was not in any way an act in exercise of the right of private defence. If he is released on bail, it will affect the law and order situation of the locality. In any view of the matter, the investigators may be given reasonable further time to complete the investigation, prays the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in BA.430/08 : 3 : the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the F.I. Statement. I have perused the wound certificate also. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled to the invocation of the discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at this early stage. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed. However, I may hasten to observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to move this court or the Sessions court for bail again at later stages of the investigation not, at any rate, prior to 01/02/2008. The investigators shall, in the meantime, make every endeavour to complete the investigation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) aks