IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4103 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.617/2010 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST. .................... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN SANKARADIYIL HOUSE, ANIYIL KARA EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD, KOCHI. 2. RAMJEESH AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN SANKARADIYIL HOUSE, ANIYIL KARA EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.V.M.SAJAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 4103 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 30.05.2010 at about 7.45 P.M., due to previous enmity between first accused and the de facto complainant's father, all the accused (A1 to A3) in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant's father and attacked him, using an iron rod and broken soda bottle etc. and inflicted various injuries and thereby, committed the various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the incident did not happen as alleged. Petitioners are father and son and they are accused nos. 1 and 2. They are doing business in front of a market and the de facto complainant's father has taken a stall in the market on lease. De facto complainant's father was not happy with the business conducted by petitioners and he has enmity towards petitioners. On the date of B.A. No. 4103 / 2010 2 occurrence, first accused had gone inside the market to take tea. 4. At that time, de facto complainant's father attacked first accused and inflicted injuries on him, it is submitted. On seeing this, third accused, who is a cousin of the first accused came running and intervened and the de facto complainant sustained injuries from the third accused. Second accused has not committed any offence and he was not even present at the scene. First accused was hospitalised and Annexure-2 is the certificate issued from the Taluk Government Hospital, Narakkal, showing that he had a lacerated wound on the scalp, which was sutured. It is also to be noted that as per the wound certificate, the injured was attacked by three persons and not two. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant's father had sustained various injuries in the course of the incident. The injuries are sutured and he had also lost teeth. Iron rod and soda bottle were used for the offence. B.A. No. 4103 / 2010 3 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the medical certificate issued to the injured, I find that two injuries of considerable nature are those were sutured and those are on the neck. He also sustained a lacerated wound on the forearm measuring 8X3X2 cm. An incised wound, exposing a vein was also noted, apart from the lost two teeth. The mere allegation that first accused also sustained an injury cannot be made a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is not made out any ground to invoke under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant anticipatory bail. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln