IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3366 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.201/10 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (S): PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SHIBU, PANAVILAKATHU MELEPUTHEN VEEDU, NARUVAMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER SMT.M.JAYASREE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FOR NARCOTIC CASES, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3366 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 326 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 19.2.2010, at about 9.45 p.m., petitioner (A1) and second accused, in furtherance of common intention assaulted defacto complainant using a chopper and thereby committed the various offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged. He has not even used any weapon for the offence. On the date of occurrence, when petitioner was going along the road, defacto complainant and few others, who were inimical towards petitioner, came to petitioner and inflicted injuries on him. He was pushed down and both his legs were cut with weapons like sword, sword stick and iron rod and he sustained fracture to both his legs. He also sustained various other lacerated wounds on his body, as evidenced by Annexure A3. The petitioner was unconscious. On BA NO. 3366/10 2 the statement given by petitioner's wife, a crime was registered against defacto complainant and others, involving offences under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the injury sustained by defacto complainant is not at the hands of petitioner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the case diary, petitioner had used a long chopper and he had attacked defacto complainant. The defacto complainant sustained fracture to the right hand. However, it is submitted that at present, only petitioner and second accused are implicated in the offence, though as per the first information statement, there were four persons as accused in this case. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, particularly the wound certificate issued to defacto complainant and the allegations made therein with respect to the cause of injury and the documents produced by petitioner, I think the petitioner has a strong and arguable case, regarding the manner in which the incident happened. Therefore, if anticipatory bail is rejected, it is likely that he will suffer irreparable injury and BA NO. 3366/10 3 loss. In the above circumstances, I am persuaded to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) In case petitioner is involved in any offence of similar nature, his bail is liable to be cancelled. (2) This order will be in force only for a period of one month and in the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs