IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4538 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.205 OF 2008 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- MURUKAN, AGED 39, S/O.GANGADHARAN, POTTAYIL LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KOTTAKAL VILLAGE, PAYATTUVILA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4538 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 447 and 326 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner went to the house of the de facto complainant, abused him and assaulted him using an iron rod and the de facto complainant's father sustained injury, including fracture. Petitioner used to play CD cassette in his house to the nuisance of the child of the injured and the studies were interrupted. The de facto complainant's father, on several times, warned him not to do so. On the date of occurrence, the accused came to the house and asked the de facto complainant's father as to what would happen if he was playing the CD and stating this, he assaulted him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant's father (the injured) had been harassing and abusing the petitioner's wife regularly, without any reason and create problems for her. When she resented to this, on 24.5.2008, the injured trespassed into her house and pulled her nighty and attempted to make physical advances against her. This was done in the presence of his own wife and the grand-children. Since he was BA.4538/08 2 continuously harassing the petitioner, she filed a complaint before the police requesting to take action in the matter. A receipt was also issued to her and the complaint was registered as a petition on 24.5.2008. But no action was taken in the petition. 4. Thereafter, on knowing that a complaint was given, the petitioner was assaulted by the injured, his son and son-in-law and he sustained injuries and he was hospitalised, as evidenced by Annexures I and II wound certificates. This was on 24.5.2008 at 7.45 PM. But, no action was taken in this matter also by the police. However, on a complaint lodged by the injured's daughter, the police is coming in search of the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that the police, who is in active in the matter of the petitioner and his wife and who has not taken any action on the complaint made by the petitioner, will harass and torture the petitioner, if he is arrested. It is also likely that he will be detained in custody. It is also submitted that the injured is a drunkard and he had fallen down and sustained injury and the wound certificate, if any, issued to the injured at the first point of time will reveal this fact. 5. This petition is opposed. It is submitted that there are witnesses who have seen the petitioner assaulting the de facto complainant's father and he sustained a fracture also. BA.4538/08 3 6. On hearing both sides and on perusing the records produced, I find that on 24.5.2008, the petitioner's wife had made a complaint to the police alleging that physical advances were made and that he used to repeatedly harass her. But the said complaint was registered only as a petition and thereafter no action was also taken by the police. Even though the petitioner was in the hospital and he had sustained injury allegedly at the hands of the injured and his close relatives, no action was taken in that matter also. 7. It was also brought to my notice that after the incident also, the petitioner's wife had filed a complaint before the Vanitha Commission, since the police was inactive and on the complaint made by her, an undertaking was obtained from the injured by the Vanitha Commission. A copy of the undertaking is produced for perusal. It is undertaken by the injured in this case before the Vanitha Commission that he will not create any problem to the petitioner's wife. It is also relevant to note that the case diary does not contain the first medical record prepared in connection with the examination of the injured to verify whether he was drunk, as alleged. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail and the following order is passed: BA.4538/08 4 Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and in case of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not influence any witness or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, this bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.