IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4017 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.402/2010 OF THENMALA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ SHIJU RAJAN,AGED 23 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN, SHIJU BHAVAN,PLACHERY.P.O,EDAMON DIVISION, EDAMON VILLAGE,PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.SREEVALSAN.V RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.4017 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 324, 323, 427 r/w 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, a request was made to de facto complainant to give financial aid for conducting marriage of his daughter in the first marriage. He agreed for paying Rs.50,000/- But, the former wife and others did not accept the offer. While so, on 03/06/2010, at about 7 p.m, while de facto complainant was watching TV, an autorikshaw came to the gate of de facto complainant's house. When he went there, he was assaulted by first and second accused. Other accused were sitting in the autorikshaw and they also assaulted him using sword etc. The inmates of the house were also assaulted. Stones were pelted at the house and damage was caused to the household articles. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner(A3) submitted that de facto complainant had promised to pay Rs.50,000/- for marriage of his daughter in the first wife who was abandoned. But, he did not pay the amount and on 03/06/2010, first accused who is the son of de facto complainant in the earlier marriage had gone to the house of B.A No.4017 OF 2010 2 de facto complainant to get the money. There was some altercation between the parties but third accused did not commit any offence, it is submitted. Even according to FIS, he had only pelted stones, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a brutal attack on de facto complainant and various other persons, who are the inmates of the house. Four persons are injured in the incident and serious injuries are sustained by most of the injured. They were all hospitalised. Weapons were used for the offence and those are to be recovered. All the accused committed the offences, as members of an unlawful assembly and the accused were armed with weapons, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made and also the injury sustained by various persons in the incident, the nature of weapons used etc., I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners have no explanation for the injuries inflicted on various persons. 7. No further application for anticipatory bail in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. B.A No.4017 OF 2010 3 K.HEMA JUDGE vdv