IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2634 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.469/10 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 ---------------------------------------- JOY,S/O.SAMUEL CHACKO,MANNIL MELETHIL, MYLAPRA PO, MYLAPRA VILLAGE,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2634 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 28th May, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452 and 324 read with Section 149 Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner(A2) along with other accused formed into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons like stick and sword stick, trespassed into the house of defacto complainant and assaulted the defacto complainant. When his wife intervened, she was also assaulted. When a neighbour came rushing, he was also assaulted. Injuries were sustained in the incident and the injured were hospitalised. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a long-standing dispute existing between defacto complainant and accused. They were having property inherited from common ancestors and the dispute arose in respect of that property. There was settlement also. The defacto complainant was trying to break the terms of compromise and petitioner wanted to prevent that. No untoward incident happened and the BA NO.2634/10 2 allegations made are absolutely baseless, it is submitted. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that stick and sword stick were used for commission of offences and those are to be recovered. Petitioner allegedly used stick and defacto complainant sustained injuries and he was hospitalised also. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the need for interrogation of petitioner and recovery of the weapon allegedly used by him, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs