IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3512 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.608/2010 OF CHATHANNOOR POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DIST) PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. DILEEP, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN, RESIDING AT BABY SADANAM, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT BABY SADANAM, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. DEEPU, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT BABY SADANAM, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. DINESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT BABY SADANAM, MUTTAKKAVU, NEDUMPANA, NEDUMPANA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3512 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 21.05.2010 at about 9 P.M., petitioners (accused nos. 1, 4, 2 and 3 respectively), trespassed into the sit- out of the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted de facto complainant by using sticks and hand and thereby committed various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that accused nos. 2 and 3 were injured in the incident. They were assaulted by de facto complainant by using an iron rod on their head and they also sustained injuries. They were hospitalised on the same night and they were discharged only on 22nd and 24th May, 2010. According to petitioners, the incident happened at a junction, not in the house, as alleged. But on knowing that petitioners were admitted in the hospital, de facto complainant got himself admitted in hospital. He had not sustained any serious injuries, B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 2 but a crime was registered on a statement given by him under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code etc. 4. It is also submitted that false allegation is made that the incident happened inside the house of the de facto complainant, for the purpose of including the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners apprehend that they will suffer irreparable injury and loss, if anticipatory bail is not granted. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners that de facto complainant was actually attacking the accused in this case on the belief that they were spreading rumours about his wife. However, as per the allegation in the F.I. Statement, the motive alleged is as follows: de facto complainant, warned the accused not to spread rumours about his wife and also that he would complaint to the police if they continued to do so. Therefore, accused had enmity towards de facto complainant. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant has not sustained any grievous hurt and hence, offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is deleted. B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 3 Iron rod and sticks were used for the offence and those are to be recovered, for which, petitioners interrogation is necessary, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents produced as well as the case diary in this case, it appears that second and third accused sustained injuries on their head and there is an allegation that they were assaulted using iron rod on 21.05.2010 at about 9 P.M. and they were hospitalised also. On going through the F.I. Statement in this case, it can be seen that de facto complainant made an allegation that his two teeth were loosened in the assault and hence offence under Section 326 was included while registering the crime. But, the wound certificate relating to him shows that he had no injury to the tooth at all. 7. In such circumstances, it appears that petitioners have a strong and arguable case regarding the place where incident happened. The defence can be established only during trial. At the same time, considering the serious nature of the allegations B.A. No. 3512 / 2010 4 made, I do not think that anticipatory bail will be the remedy. Petitioners have required for interrogation and recovery of the weapons allegedly used and hence following order is passed. 1. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. 2. On such surrender, if petitioners are arrested, offence under section 452 will be treated as not included for the purpose of bail. This petition is disposed of. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln