IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5138 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.206/08 OF VATANAPPILLY POLICE STATION PETITIONER --------------------------- NAVEEN, S/O. VENU, VADAKOTTU HOUSE, IRATTAPPUZHA PRASAD NAGAR, KADAPURAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5138 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323 and 304 read with Section 149 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner along with other accused have assaulted the deceased and inflicted injuries on him, by kicking on the stomach and face and hitting on the chest. The deceased succumbed to the injuries due to internal bleeding, after five days of the incident. The incident was on 13.3.2008 and the death was on 18.3.2008. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the seventh accused who has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner is a BJP worker. The deceased was a worker of CPI(M). His parents are also active workers of the same party. Though the incident happened on 13.3.2008, till 18.3.2008, nobody had a case that the petitioner committed any offence against the deceased. Even the deceased himself gave statement to the doctor, when he was admitted on 13.3.2008, that he had a fall from the motor cycle, as the history of the BA No.5138/08 2 injury. He had not implicated anybody until his death. He was not questioned by the police. It is submitted that at a very highly belated stage, on 18.3.2008, after the death of the deceased, some persons come forward with a complaint alleging that certain offence was committed by the petitioner and others. 4. This case is falsely foisted out of sheer political rivalry between the two political parties, it is submitted. Going by the prosecution case, itself, it was pointed out that no specific overt act was alleged against the petitioner. Only A1 to A3 allegedly committed the offence. They did not use any weapons in the offence, but, they only kicked and fisted the defacto complainant, consequent to which, there was internal bleeding, he being a jaundice patient. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the deceased had not made any complaint to the police because he was apprehending more danger to him from the rival political party. The incident happened since one of the friends of the deceased attacked the BA No.5138/08 3 third accused. This present case was a retaliation to the said incident. The deceased did not divulge the fact to any person including doctor since he was concerned about his own safety. However, on the next day of the incident, on 14th he had told his parents about the incident and when the deceased died on 18.3.2008, the information was given to the police. On investigation, it is revealed that there were eye witnesses to the occurrence who come forward with a complaint to the police. But, it is not correct to say that no incident occurred at all. 6. A look at the photograph in the case diary reveals the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, he submitted. The injured had considerable extent of contusion on the face and on different parts of the body, including stomach which would all corroborate oral statements. There was also an injury on the leg. The nature of the injury sufficiently points out that blunt force was used by the assailants. The postmortem certificate also gives the details of the injury sustained and the present allegation made against the assailants cannot be said to be inconsistent with medical evidence only because the crime was not reported without delay. The delay does not erase the crime BA No.5138/08 4 at all and therefore, this petition is opposed and anticipatory bail may not be granted, it is submitted. Except accused nos. 4 and 7, all others were arrested and the petitioner was absconding and hence, he could not be arrested. 7. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I am satisfied that it may not be proper for this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an offence of this nature. As per the allegations, petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly and he acted pursuant to the common object of the assembly and it is not correct to say that he had no role at all. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl