IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6374 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.235/08 OF PULIKKESZHU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ 2ND & 3RD ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNI, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.ANIYAN, KANICHERIL VEEDU, PARUMALA, KADAPRA VILLAGE. 2. SHYAM, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.SASI, KANICHERIL VEEDU, PARUMALA, KADPRA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/ STATE --------------------------------- 1. THE S.I.OF POLICE, PULIKKEZHU, THIRUVALLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6374 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 294(b), 447, 308 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, one Santhosh and accused had some altercations with each other. Thereafter, when he was attempted to be assaulted, he ran into the house of de facto complainant. The de facto complainant tried to prevent the attack while accused 1 and 2 aimed a cut at the de facto complainant with a weapon (sword) which he evaded. He was also abused by filthy language. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in the crime. De facto complainant is a police driver and in case petitioners are arrested, they will suffer irreparable injury and loss, it is submitted. De facto complainant did not sustain any injury even though it is alleged that sword was used and a cut was aimed. Offence under Section 308 IPC is deliberately included to harass petitioner, it is submitted. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioner, it is submitted. It is BA.6374/08 2 also pointed out that offence under Sections 294(b) and 447 IPC will not lie together, since to constitute offence under Section 294 (b) IPC, the offence must be committed in a public place. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are materials to connect the accused with the crime and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that in the nature of the allegations made, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. But as far as offence under Section 308 IPC is concerned, I find that the court concerned and the police may treat the offences involved in this case as one excluding under Section 308 IPC. Petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate Court or the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. It is made that the police will be at liberty to arrest the petitioners, notwithstanding this order. With this observation and direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.