IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6930 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.596/2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. LIPSON, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. PAULY, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, JESUS LANE, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, NELLIKKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. JACKSON, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. PAULY, DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.596 OF 2009 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION) SRI. AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6930 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 Crime No.596/2009 of Mannuthy Police Station, Thrissur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 452 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18/10/2009, the accused persons trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked his daughter aged 6 ½ years with an iron rod and she sustained injuries on her face. 4. In the F.I. Statement, it is stated that the accused persons were following Shaju, the brother of the de facto complainant in order to attack him with an iron rod and sword. Shaju escaped and came running to the house of the de facto complainant. He closed the grill and escaped. The accused persons came to the compound of the de facto complainant. The B.A. No. 6930/2009 2 daughter of the de facto complainant was sitting in the Varanda and reading. At that time, she was attacked by the accused. The girl became unconscious. She was taken to the hospital. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner had sustained serious injuries on his head and that the police did not register a case against the assailant, namely, the brother of the de facto complainant. On the other hand, the police wanted to arrest the petitioners. The case is a foisted one. There was no intention to cause any injury to the daughter of the de facto complainant and therefore, if at all the allegations are found to be true, no offence as alleged would lie against the petitioners. 6. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioners committed criminal trespass and caused injuries to the daughter of the de facto complainant. The rival contentions of the parties are to5 be considered at the time of trial. At the time of disposal of the Bail Application, all these contentions need not be considered. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. No. 6930/2009 3 case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm