IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3989 of 2010() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.474/10 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION) .......................................... PETITIONERS (S):/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. PADMADAS, S/O.KOCHUCHERUKAN, AGED 38, VIJITHA VILASOM, THOPPIL, MULAKKLATHUYKAVU, KILIMANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 2. BABU S/O.MAHADEVAN, AGED 43, SANDYA VILASAM, -DO- -D0- 3. DEVADAS, S/O.KOCHUCHERUKKAN, AGED 36, DEEPU MANDIRAM, -DO- -DO- 4. BIJU, S/O.GOPI, AGED 38 YEARS, VIDYA BHAVAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KILIMANOOR POLICE SATION, KILIMANOOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. V. TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.3989 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 294(b), 323, 326 IPC. According to prosecution, on 8.5.2010 at about 7.30pm, accused 1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted defacto complainant, after wrongfully restraining him and also abused him in obscene language in public. Stone was used for commission of offence. Defacto complainant lost his tooth in this incident. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complainant. FIR was registered on 23.5.2010 . There was some wordy quarrel between defacto complainant and few others and all of a sudden, one person slapped defacto complainant, but there is no deliberate attack. The only injury is loss of one tooth. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that it is not correct to say that there is no deliberate intention, as per the allegations. The motive for the offence was B.A. No.3989/10 2 enemity which developed since the defacto complainant's daughter, filed a complaint against her husband, who is the 4th accused in this case. Therefore, father-in-law, who is the defacto complainant was assaulted by 4th accused and his associates. Defacto complainant lost a tooth and hospitalised. The delay is satisfactorily explained. Defacto complainant was in the Medical College Hospital and he thought that intimation would have been given. But it was only later he know that no crime was registered. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made, motive alleged for the offence etc., I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The names of all the petitioners are mentioned in the wound certificate itself while defacto complained was examined on the same day. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. This petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.