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. 2840 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.964/2010 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SURESH KUMAR, S/O. SIVASANKARAN PILLAI, KALEELIL VEEDU, KURUMPALOOR, NEDUVATHOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM 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. 2840 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 452, 325, 294(b), and 354 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 19.4.2010 at about 11 p.m. petitioner allegedly trespassed into the house of de facto complainant and shouted slogans and voluntarily caused injury to de facto complainant and he sustained fracture. Petitioner also outraged the modesty of de facto complainant's daughter. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no incident as alleged had taken place on 19.4.2010. In fact, de facto complainant and neighbors were having some quarrel, while petitioner interfered and pacified them. But, later, petitioner and de facto complainant's son had some altercation and at the instance of de facto complainant's son, a complaint is filed by the de facto complainant. The complaint was lodged only after five days of the alleged incident, it is submitted. 3. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor [B.A.No.2840/10] 2 submitted that de facto complainant sustained fracture at the hands of the accused and he was treated in the hospital. There was compression of fracture of vertebra on de facto complainant. The wound certificate reveals that there was fracture. It is not correct to say that this is a false case. Petitioner's name was stated to the doctor while de facto complainant was examined by the doctor, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, considering the nature of the allegations made, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner. Petitioner is bound to surrender and cooperate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: Petitioner shall appear before investigating officer or the Magistrate Court concerned within one week from today and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.