IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7064 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.299/08 OF KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONER: APPLICANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- PHILIP, S/O.JOSEPH, OORATHU HOUSE, THENKUDAM BHAGAM, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, KARIMANNOOR POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7064 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence is under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was inimical towards de facto complainant, since the former was under the impression that de facto complainant was the person, who was instrumental for petitioner's son's marriage proposal getting fizzled out. Therefore, when he was proceeding on the road, he was assaulted by petitioner with a torch and thereby he lost a tooth. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. Petitioner was, in fact, assaulted by de facto complainant and he fell down and he sustained injuries and a complaint was lodged on the same day, on 6.10.2008 itself. A crime was registered under Sections 341, 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against de facto complainant. But, after five days on 11.10.2008, de facto complainant lodged a complaint BA.7064/08 2 against petitioner, based on which, the present crime is registered. It is not correct to say that any injury was caused by petitioner to de facto complainant. Petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. It is pointed out that there is a long delay in lodging the complaint. It was only on the 5th day of the incident that the First Information Statement was lodged and hence no implicit reliance can be placed on the allegations made against petitioner at a belated stage, it is submitted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the First Information Statement, petitioner committed the offence by beating him with a torch on 6.10.2008. Though the crime was registered only on 16.10.2008, de facto complainant had given an explanation for the delay in the First Information Statement. According to him, petitioner's son had assured to bear all the expenses for the treatment for fixing a tooth. 5. After hearing both sides, I have perused the case diary. I have also noted that de facto complainant was examined by the doctor only on 11.10.2008, i.e., after 5 days of incident. BA.7064/08 3 Though the incident occurred on 6.10.2008 at about 9.30 PM, petitioner went to doctor only on 11.10.2008. On going through the wound certificate, which was issued on 11.10.2008 and taking into account the history of the allegations made by the doctor at the time of examination of de facto complainant (which does not tally with the present case) and the delay in lodging the First Information Statement, I am satisfied that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on condition that petitioner will report before the investigating officer as and when directed. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.