IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3014 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.101/2010 OF KUMILY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT) PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- VIJI @ VIJAYAKUKMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, POTTASSERIYIL HOUSE, CHAKKUPALLAM.P.O., CHAKKUPALLAM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUMILY THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------- B.A.NO. 3014 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the25th day of May, 2010. ORDER This petition for Anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offence under Sections 308, 341, 294, 294(b), 324 read with 341 Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, defacto complainant was traveling in a motor cycle while petitioner along with first accused wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him by using iron rod and he is sustained injuries, including fracture. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. There is a Civil dispute between defacto complainant and accused and earlier, there was an incident in 2009. Petitioner is a neighbour of first accused and he happened to a witness to both the incidents. 4. On the date of occurrence the defacto complainant and others assaulted first accused and his wife and on hearing the hue and cry, petitioner went to the spot and he happened to the witness present incident also. The only access to the residence of the petitioner and other residents is a pathway regarding which there is a civil dispute. The said pathway was closed by the defacto B.A.NO. 3014 OF 2010 2 complainant. 5. This petition is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a specific allegation against petitioner that he had beaten with iron rod and fracture was caused to defacto complainant, as revealed from the statement of doctor. It is not correct to say that only wrongfully restraint was cause to defacto complainant. It is revealed from the case diary that petitioner and other accused acted furtherance of a common intention. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the nature of allegations made, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case of this nature. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA,JUDGE. pm