IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6717 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.344/2008 OF NEDUMPUZHA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- T.A.JOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, THEKKINIYATH HOUSE, OLLUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6717 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioner trespassed into the office of the LIC and the defacto complainant, who is the LIC development officer, was assaulted by petitioner with intention to commit murder. He also used a multipurpose knife attached to a key chain to commit the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had no intention to commit any murder. Petitioner and the defacto complainant had some quarrel with each other being the LIC agent and the development officer respectively. The quarrel resulted in a push and pull and petitioner was caught hold of by his collar by the defacto complainant and he resisted and in the course of this, some injury was caused by contact with the key chain, which he was holding. According to learned counsel for petitioner, injury sustained by the defacto complainant will indicate that the incident happened only in this BA No.6717 /2008 2 manner. 4. It is submitted that injury nos.2 and 3, as per the wound certificate issued to defacto complainant, there are only incised wounds which are skin deep. It is also submitted that petitioner had some injuries. He had pain on the neck and numbness and also some tenderness as revealed from the medical records produced. He had problem with inter vertebral disc following the incident and petitioner was hospitalised from 4.10.2008 till 3.11.2008 for a period of one month. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that defacto complainant sustained a lacerated injury of a considerable measurement 2cm. over the neck also and a multi purpose knife was used for commission of the offence. It is also submitted that two incised wounds are caused on the upper arm and also near the left eye. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and recovery of weapon used has to be effected by interrogation of petitioner, it is submitted. As per the written instructions dated 5.11.2008, the weapon used has not been recovered, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, it appears that both sides have BA No.6717 /2008 3 sustained injuries and both have made physical advances against each other. It is not possible at this stage to find out who the aggressor was, especially in the absence of evidence. In a case where both sides assaulted each other, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is also required for interrogation and recovery of weapon. 7. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate court concerned and applies for bail, the same contentions can be raised and bail application shall be disposed of, after consideration of these contentions on merit. It is needless to say that consideration for grant of bail and anticipatory bail are different and dismissal of anticipatory bail application by itself is not a ground to reject bail. With these observations, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl