IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5256 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.258/08 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED 1 TO 4: -------------------------------- 1. JAYAN @ KUTTAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. VINODKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. SUDHA, D/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. MEENAKSHI, W/O.,MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE,MAYANNUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 5256 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 448, 324, 354, 294 (b) and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 20.6.2008 at about 3.30 PM, the petitioners, in furtherance of common intention, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and committed various offences. The de facto complainant sustained grievous hurt, a fracture to the hand. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that there is a case and a counter case. A crime is registered as Crime No.258 of 2008 on the complaint lodged by the first petitioner against the de facto complainant and others, for having trespassed into his house and committed offence under Section 324 IPC. It is because of the influence that an offence under Section 326 is included in this case, with a view to refuse bail to the petitioners, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides, it only appears that there was an attack and a counter attack at two different places. The de facto complainant in this case is sustained a fracture. The involvement of all the petitioners are mentioned in the FIR itself. When two groups fight against each other, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory BA.5256/08 2 bail to such persons. But, I make it clear that the considerations for granting bail and anticipatory bail are different. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.