IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5726 of 2008() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.316/2008 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.OMANA, PUTHEN KAYALVEETTIL, KUDAVECHOOR KARA, VECHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.5726 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 308 and 447 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner criminally trespassed into the property of the de facto complainant and assaulted him with iron rod. 3. According to learned counsel for petitioner, in the earlier anticipatory bail application also the relevant facts were not brought to the notice of this Curt. It is submitted that the incident did not occur in the property of the de facto complainant, but it occurred in the house of the petitioner herein. He submitted that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner's mother before the Magistrate court, copy of which is Annexure-II, wherein it is specifically alleged that the de facto complainant had allegedly trespassed into the house of the petitioner and assaulted the petitioner using an iron rod. The petitioner also sustained injury [B.A.No.5726/08] 2 and he was hospitalised, as evidenced by Annexure-1. The de facto complainant is the aggressor, who had abused petitioner's mother by trespassing into the house, since his mother objected to the sale of illicit liquor from the de facto complainant's property, which is lying adjacent to petitioner's property. The de facto complainant is not residing in the property, but he is coming to the spot only for illicit liquor business. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant being the aggressor, anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, who also sustained injury. It was also submitted that petitioner is not involved in any other offence. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. He was referred to the Medical College Hospital in view of the seriousness of the injury. He sustained lacerated wound of the scalp and various other injuries also. The scene mahazar and the documents will clearly show that the incident occurred in the property of the de facto complainant and not in the property of the petitioner. [B.A.No.5726/08] 3 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the records and documents produced, I do not find any reason to come to a different finding than what was entered in the order in the earlier anticipatory bail application. At this stage, it may not be possible to enter a finding that the de facto complainant himself is the aggressor on the basis of the materials now available. I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or the investigating officer and a direction may be issued to dispose of the bail application as expeditiously. 6. Though I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is directed that the petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 7 days from today and co-operate with the investigation and subject himself to interrogation. Thereafter, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the Magistrate Court concerned in accordance with law. On production of the petitioner before the Magistrate, if any bail application is filed, it shall be disposed of on merit in accordance with law as expeditiously. It is made clear that the considerations for granting anticipatory bail are [B.A.No.5726/08] 4 different from the considerations for granting bail under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Application is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs. // True Copy // P.S. to Judge.