IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3494 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.101/08 OF THIRUVALLAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 3 ------------------------------- 1. PRAKASAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN KULAVARAMPU MELEYIRATHU VEEDU KEEZHU VELLAYANI PO 2. RATHEESH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN OF DO. DO. 3. SUGANTHAN, AGED 44 S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, ERATTAVILAKAM VEEDU PALAPPOORU, VELLAYANI PO BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.3494 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, on 21.4.2008, the de facto complainant was assaulted by petitioners 1 to 3. The first accused beat him with an iron rod and caused a fracture to the leg. Accused 2 and 3 also beat him and kicked him. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint and a crime was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326,294B and 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the first accused sustained a stab injury at the hands of the de facto complainant in this case on the left upper thigh, and it is evident from Annexure-II. The wound certificate would show that the first accused made an allegation that he was stabbed. It is also submitted that the petitioner was discharged only on 24.4.2008. But the de facto complainant in this case was discharged on the same day but a crime was registered against the petitioners, whereas no crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the first accused though he was hospitalised and he had sustained a serious injury. According to learned counsel for petitioners, the father of accused 1 and 2 demanded the money which, the de facto BA.3494/08 2 complainant owed to him. Therefore, a false complaint is lodged against the petitioners. There is no specific allegation that petitioners 2 and 3 did anything against de facto complainant. 4. This petition is opposed. It was pointed out that the wound certificate produced will show that there is only a lacerated injury and not any stab injury, though the allegation is that there was a stab. It is also submitted that petitioners 2 and 3 had also assaulted the de facto complainant by beating and kicking as per the allegations made. It is also submitted that an iron rod was used for the offence by the first accused and the recovery is not effected so far. It is also pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor that the incident in this case occurred on 5.30 pm, but Annexure-II will show that the first accused was in the hospital at 5 pm. Therefore, there may be another incident, or at least such possibility cannot be ruled out at this stage. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioners were not able to substantiate that the de facto complainant was the agressor, though it appears that there was a counter attack. Recovery of weapon is also to be effected and petitioners would be required for custodial interrogation. Therefore, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioner BA.3494/08 3 submitted that a direction may be issued to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application, if any, filed by the petitioner on the same day itself. I am confident that even though no direction is given, bail application would be considered and disposed of on merit by the Subordinate Courts as expeditiously as possible and hence, no specific direction need be issued. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.