IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6256 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.487/08 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER: -------------------- AYOOB, 38 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED THAMBI POOCHADI AYYATH VILAYIL VEEDU CHUNDA MURI, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6256 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 447, 448, 323, 324, 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 9.7.2008 the petitioner, along with two other accused, trespassed into the courtyard of the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted him and his wife and they sustained injuries. A crime was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who is the first accused was assaulted by the de facto complainant and six others and the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that as per the allegations in the present crime, the de facto complainant only lost a tooth. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a weapon was used by one of the accused. But, the tooth was lost not by the use of any weapon and hence, the offence may be under Section 325 IPC which is a bailable offence. BA.6256/08 2 5. After hearing both sides, it appears that the offence involved in this case at present does not include any non bailable offence. Hence, no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail. The mere fact that the first accused was attacked, without mentioning time, place etc. is not a ground to grant anticipatory bail. The submission made by learned counsel for petitioner that there was a counter attack and that the petitioner was sustained injuries etc. are not supported by documents. Even the nature of injuries sustained by him could not be clearly stated by learned counsel for petitioner. The incident occurred on 9.7.2008 and the petitioner was not available for arrest and interrogation, in spite of lapse of three months. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation and co- operate with the investigation. With these observation and direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.