IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2684 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMC.443/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... (CRIME NO.187/2010 OF THAMARASSERY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: -------------------- C.P.MUHAMMED,AGED 40,S/O.ABOOBACKER HAJI RESIDING AT CHORAPPANIYIL HOUSE,PUDUPPADY AMSOM DESOM,POST KAKKADE,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S BREEZ SMT.K.K.PREETHA FOR R2 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.2684 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 326, 362 r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) along with another accused assaulted de facto complainant and caused grievous hurt to de facto complainant for spreading scandal against petitioner connecting his maid servant. Fracture was caused to the leg. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the allegations, petitioner has not used any weapon. A complaint was filed against de facto complainant by one Haseena who was working as a maid servant in the house of petitioner alleging that he had molested her. Hazeena had informed the petitioner about the same and he had questioned de facto complainant about this. Offended by this, de facto complainant gave a false complaint against petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner and de facto complainant have settled the entire issues between them and de facto complainant has no grievance against petitioner now. 4. Learned counsel for de facto complainant also submitted that the matter is settled and de facto complainant has no grievance. B.A No.2684 OF 2010 2 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that fracture is caused to de facto complainant and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 6. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted only because parties settled the issues. However, in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, petitioner may approach the trial court for appropriate relief. 7. I make it clear that consideration for anticipatory bail and for bail under Section 437 are different. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv