IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3069 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.545/10 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. KUNJU MON, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KOCHUKUNJU KITTAN, SABARIYAMANGAL HOUSE, EZHIMATTOOR, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SUMESH.P.K, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUMON, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH S.I OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA IN CRIME NO. 545/2010 OF THIRUVALLA P.S) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3069 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 21st July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos.1 and 2) along with few others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant, his son and daughter-in-law by using iron rod, and thereby committed the various offences stated above. The incident happened on 5.5.2010 at about 3.30 p.m. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that originally, offence under Section 326 was not included in the F.I.R. It is also pointed out that the F.I.R. was registered under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code etc., but it was later deleted. The present allegation is that the defacto complainant lost one tooth. 4. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, defacto complainant fell down when he tried to attack first petitioner with a stone. Defacto complainant was under BA NO. 3069/10 2 intoxication and he lost a tooth by fall. A crime was also registered at the instance of first accused against defacto complainant as crime no.782/10. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even prior to the registration of the crime, defacto complainant was examined by the doctor on the same day, within about one hour of the incident and injuries were noted, which included a lacerated wound and loss of a tooth. The mere omission in the F.I. statement to state about loss of tooth may not be made a ground to hold that offence under Section 326 IPC is not involved. Three persons were attacked by petitioners and they had gone to the hospital and they had contusion and abrasions also. One of the injured is a woman and defacto complainant is a person aged 68 years. The iron rod used for the offence is not recovered. Petitioners are required for the purpose of custodial interrogation and for effecting recovery, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that the allegations made against petitioners are serious in nature. A grievous hurt is caused to defacto complainant. Two other persons are also BA NO. 3069/10 3 injured in the incident. Iron rod is used for the offence, which is not yet recovered, though more than two months have elapsed after the incident. For the purpose of recovery of the weapon, petitioners' custodial interrogation will be necessary. The mere registration of another crime in respect of the same incident by itself may not be a ground for granting anticipatory bail. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are prepared to surrender before the court below. They may do so, if they are so advised. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs