IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3450 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRMP.2100/2010 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA. CRIME NO.97/2010 OF THE MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------- 1. JOJO VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE @ THOMAS, AGED 30 YEARS, KADAVIL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDY.P.O. 2. JUSTIN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE @ THOMAS, AGED 32 YEARS, KADAVIL HOUSE, THOPRAMKUDY.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3450 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 308, 354 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 20.4.2010 at about 8.10 P.M. petitioners(A1 and A2) parked their scooter in front of the medical shop run by de facto complainant and his wife. De facto complainant wanted the motor cycle to be removed, while first accused caught hold of the de facto complainant's wife and pulled her down. De facto complainant obstructed first accused, while second accused hit him with a stone and also beat de facto complainant's father in law, who was present in the medical shop. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the incident did not occur, as alleged. De facto complainant and his father-in-law were quarrelling with each other and on seeing this petitioners, who were standing in the bus waiting shed asked why they were quarrelling. De facto complainant turned against first petitioner and pushed him down. The second accused, who is his B.A. No. 3450 / 2010 2 brother asked not to commit such acts. This is what happened and all other allegations are not correct, it is submitted. 4. This petition is not opposed by learned Public Prosecutor, since there are only minor injury on de facto complainant. On hearing both sides and considering the nature of allegations made, I do not think this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though petitioner would put forward a counter allegation, there is no circumstance or material to support the same. Offences under Sections 452 and 308 are involved in this case, but as far as offence under Section 308 is concerned, in the light of nature of weapon used and the nature of injuries caused etc. Hence, I think that at this stage for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code can be treated as not included. 5. However, there is a clear allegation that petitioners trespassed into the shop with a stone and attacked de facto complainant and his father-in-law. They also allegedly pulled down de facto complainant's wife. Injuries are sustained in the incident. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln