IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3307 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.455/2010 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- VIJESH,KOCHUVILAYIL,ANAYADI,SOORANADU. BY ADV. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3307 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 14th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 323, 326, 294(b), 506(ii) and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 15.5.2010 at about 4 p.m., petitioner criminally intimidated his neighbour, one Rajan, showing a chopper and created problem in the house. The defacto complainant, who is his neighbour went to the house and questioned why he was troubling him. At that time, petitioner attacked defacto complainant with the chopper and inflicted injury on his arm. He also used obscene words and intimidated the defacto complainant. An autorickshaw driver, who came on the way was also assaulted by petitioner and his autorickshaw was destroyed by petitioner, causing loss to him. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner used to pay his salary to his neighbour Rajan and when it reached Rs.12 lakhs, petitioner wanted him to return the money. The salary was paid, since his neighbour had helped him BA NO.3307/10 2 to go abroad. The neighbour was not prepared to return the money and there was a quarrel in the neighbour's house, when the defacto complainant came there and some incident happened, but no incident, as alleged took place at the scene, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a fracture was caused to defacto complainant and the chopper is not so far recovered. Petitioner's interrogation is necessary for effecting recovery. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, the need for interrogation of petitioner and the recovery of the alleged weapon, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has also not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs BA NO.3307/10 3