IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2619 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.355/10 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION,KOLLAM .................... (S): PETITIONER/6TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SUSEELA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN, VINEETH VILASOM, KILLOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O., NEDUVATHOOR MURY, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2619 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 9th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 31.3.2010 at about 1.30 p.m., accused nos.1 to 6 trespassed into the property of defacto complainant and assaulted him by using stick, chopper etc. and inflicted injuries on him. The motive for the crime was some property dispute between petitioner and defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a woman and she had gone to the place of occurrence along with her son, aged 12 years, for plucking coconuts. The property was purchased by petitioner in her name, as per a sale deed. When the coconuts were being plucked, defacto complainant came there and assaulted petitioner's son, who is aged only 12 years. He sustained fracture to the skull, as evidenced by Annexure A1. A complaint was lodged in respect of the said incident against defacto complainant and crime is also BA NO.2619/10 2 registered. Neither the petitioner nor the boy had gone to the place of occurrence for commission of any offence. Even according to prosecution, petitioner did not use any weapon. She has only fisted and beaten with hand, as per the allegations in the complaint. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the prosecution case, petitioner has not used any weapon against defacto complainant. But, the defacto complainant and his wife sustained lacerated injury on the head by the use of sticks and chopper. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the various facts stated above, especially in the light of Annexure A1, which reveals that petitioner's son, aged 12 years sustained head injury in the incident etc., I think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed : (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today. (2) On such surrender, petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the BA NO.2619/10 3 satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions : (i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer, as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence. (iii) In case petitioner is involved in any offence of similar nature, her bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs