IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2834 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.227/2010 OF PAVARATTY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4: -------------------- 1. P.B.RAJESH,S/O.BHASKARAN,AGED 34 YEARS, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE,P.O ELAVALLY NORTH, CHITTATTUKARA (VIA),THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VINEESH P.R,AGED 20,S/O.RAVEENDRAN, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE,P.O ELAVALLY NORTH, CHITTATTUKARA (VIA),THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. RAMESH P.R,AGED 33,S/O.RAKAKRISHNAN, PUTHENKULAM HOUSE,P.O ELAVALLY NORTH, CHITTATTUKARA (VIA),THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. DINESHAN,S/O.GANGADHARAN,AGED 42, MANAYIL HOUSE,P.O ELAVALLY NORTH, CHITTATTUKARA (VIA)THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2834 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. According to prosecution, petitioners (accused nos. 1 to 4), in connection with a dispute regarding pathway, wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and he was manhandled using iron rod and inflicted fracture to his right leg. Accused nos. 2 to 4 also assaulted de facto complainant with their hands on several parts of the body. The incident happened on 24.4.2010 at 8 p.m. and a crime was registered against petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that de facto complainant actually assaulted 4th accused's father and he sustained injuries. A crime was also registered on the complaint made by 4th petitioner. This case is only a counter blast to the said crime registered at the instance of 4th accused, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that serious injuries were inflicted on the de facto [B.A.No.2834/10] 2 complainant and he sustained fracture to the leg and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. It appears that there is a definite allegation that petitioners have, in furtherance of common intention, committed the various offences. It also appears that two crimes are registered in connection with the same incident but it is not made clear why petitioners deserve anticipatory bail especially in a case where de facto complainant was assaulted and he sustained fracture during the incident. Petitioners are bound to surrender and cooperate with the investigation and interrogation. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer or Magistrate Court concerned within one week from today and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.