IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2535 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO. 215/2010 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) PETITIONERS/ A1 AND A2: -------------------- 1. RENNY, S/O.SATHEESH KUMAR (A1), T.C.24/54, POUNDUKULAM, THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VIPIN, S/O.VIJAYAN, T.C.24/47, (A2), POUNDUKULAM, THYCAUD P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CANTONMENT POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKUALM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2535 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 21/03/2010 at about 3:30 p.m, petitioners (A1 and A2), in furtherance of common intention, assaulted de facto complainant after wrongfully restraining him and caused grievous hurt on his foot. Stone was used for commission of offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that though a fracture is allegedly sustained by de facto complainant, he had gone to hospital only on the next day of incident. FIR is also registered on the next day. Petitioner was treated as an out patient and he had not made any complaint that the was assaulted. In such circumstance, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners are serious in nature. They assaulted de facto complainant with stone and a fracture was caused to the fifth metatarsal of the right foot and de facto complainant was treated at the Government hospital B.A No.2535 OF 2010 2 from 21/03/2010 onwards, as seen from the treatment certificate issued. It is clear from the certificate that de facto complainant was under treatment from 21/03/2010, the date of occurrence, and fracture was also noted during the course of treatment. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that allegations made against petitioners are serious in nature. A fracture was caused to de facto complainant, for which, he was under treatment from the date of occurrence itself, as revealed from the treatment certificate. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the injury sustained and various other facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer or Magistrate Court and co-operate with investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv