IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2554 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRMP.1079/2010 of DIST & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA OS.4/2007 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA (IA.6/2007) (CRIME NO.90/2010 OF AROOR P0LICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER --------------- GEORGE, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, PILLERKATTIL HOUSE, AROOR PANCHAYATH WARD NO.5, AROOR VILLAGE, P.O.AROOR, CHERTHALA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, AROOR POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J -------------------- Bail Application No.2554 Of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of May 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 308 and r/w Section 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 11.02.2010, at about 8.30 P.M, the second accused was driving a motor bike with the first and third accused as the pillion riders. When they reached in front of “By Pass Hotel” run by the de facto complainant, the motor bike was stopped and the first accused hit de facto complainant with an iron rod and inflicted injuries on his head. He fell down and was again manhandled by the second and third accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was a long standing rivalry between de facto complainant and petitioner (A1) in respect of a civil dispute. The de facto complainant was insisting petitioner to assign his property to him but, he was not willing. Thereafter, even access to petitioner's property was denied by blocking with stones. Therefore, petitioner was forced to move the civil court for injunction and an order was granted in his favour. While so, some incidents happened between de facto complainant and petitioner's nephew. Both of them sustained injuries by falling on the metal stocked by the side of the road. But, petitioner is totally Bail Application No.2554 Of 2010 2 innocent of the allegation made and he is not involved in the offence. But, because of the previous enmity, his name is now implicated as the first accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner's name is mentioned in the First Information Statement and he is alleged to have been inflicted an injury by using an iron rod on the de facto complainant. 5. On hearing both sides and going on the Wound Certificate issued in respect of the de facto complainant and the alleged cause of injury recorded therein and the fact that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are known to each other, I am satisfied that Anticipatory Bail can be granted to petitioner. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned, on condition that he will report before the Investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE //True Copy// vdv P.A To JUDGE