IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5479 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.240/08 OF VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ 3RD ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- SOMAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, ANAMUGHATHU SARASSIL VEEDU, SEEMAMALA JUNCTION, VENKODE.P.O, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATTAPPARA POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORKS THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.5479 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 326 308 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 7.8.2008 at about 12.30 PM, there was an altercation between the de facto complainant and the accused, in respect of constructing a fence in the property of the de facto complainant's brother. There was a dispute between the de facto complainant's brother and the petitioner regarding the way. At that time, the petitioner's son and the son-in-law were present at the scene. Three of them assaulted the de facto complainant and he sustained injuries. Chopper was used by the first accused and reaper was used by the second accused. Petitioner also used reaper and assaulted the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant's brother was also kicked by the second accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there was some altercation regarding the disputed way, but the petitioner's son and son-in-law were assaulted by the de facto complainant and his brother. They sustained serious injuries and they were hospitalised in the Medical College Hospital. They were referred to BA.NO.5479/08 2 another hospital and on their way, they were arrested. The incident did not occur in the manner alleged by the de facto complainant. The petitioner, who is the father of the second accused was not even present at the scene at the time of assault. He ran away, when the assault started and hence, he escaped from injuries. 4. Since accused 1 and 2 were arrested on their way to the hospital, the petitioner's wife gave a complaint in the police station in respect of the incident and a crime was registered against the de facto complainant and another. Police is taking the side of the de facto complainant and hence, though a crime was registered under Section 308 IPC against the de facto complainant a favourable attitude was shown by the police in favour of the de facto complainant, anticipatory bail was granted to the de facto complainant, it is submitted. Hence, if the petitioner, who is actually not involved in the offence is arrested, it will result in great injustice and he will be harassed and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail. 5. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant had sustained serious injuries on several parts of his body. He was hospitalised and he gave a statement on the very same day to the police and a crime BA.NO.5479/08 3 was registered within a few hours of the incident. Petitioner's wife lodged a complaint only after 10 days of the incident on 17.8.2008 and it is not correct to say that the petitioner is not involved in the offence at all. He assaulted the de facto complainant and used a reaper also, as per the allegations made. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the documents and the case diary, it can be seen that the petitioner's son and the son- in-law sustained injuries of considerable nature on the scalp etc. A chopper was allegedly used for committing offence against the petitioner's close relatives and two of them were injured. The de facto complainant also sustained injuries in the incident and he was hospitalised. The petitioner did not sustain even a scratch in the incident and according to petitioner, this itself reveals that he was not present at the close vicinity. 7. In the complaint and the case diary, the witnesses or the de facto complainant have not given any explanation as to how the petitioner's son and son-in-law sustained injuries. On the other hand, Annexure-II First Information Statement given by the petitioner's wife reveals that the de facto complainant also had sustained injuries in the incident. According to her, the de facto complainant and his brother had assaulted the first accused using BA.NO.5479/08 4 weapon and this fact is supported by the wound certificate. The fact that the de facto complainant who was the accused in the other crime registered under Section 308 IPC was granted anticipatory bail, has not been disputed also. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner and the following order is passed: Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and in case of arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer. ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation. Iii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.