IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3253 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.321/2010 OF VADANAPPALLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT) PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SREEJITH, AGED 24, S/O.SREEKRISHNAN ALUNGAL HOUSE, THAMBANKADAVU P.O., THALIKKULAM, THRISSUR. 2. ANEESH, S/O.MOHAN, AGED 23 YEARS, MAYUR HOUSE, THAMBANKADAVU P.O., THALIKKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3253 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 448, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 and A2) allegedly trespassed into the shop room of de facto complainant and assaulted him by using iron rod. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was only an altercation between the de facto complainant and accused. No injuries are sustained by de facto complainant. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant sustained only contusions. However, the weapons alleged to be used for the offence is recovered. First accused is involved in three other similar offences and second accused is also involved in two other cases. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I find that this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Petitioners are required for interrogation and recovery of weapon. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv