IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 44 of 2009() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.33350/2008 Dated 27/11/2008 Crime No. 1268/2008 of the Kollam East Police Station .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR @ UNNI, KULATHI PURAYIDATHIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, KULATHIL PURAYIDATHIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. 3. SUNIL, KULATHIL PURAYIDATHIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. 4. RAJAMMA, KULATHIL PURAYIDATHIL, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 44 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 326 and 149 of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioners (A1 to A3) in furtherance of common intention assaulted de facto complainant and caused fracture to the nasal bone and other injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have not committed any offence, as alleged. There was a push and pull and, in the meantime, de facto complainant had fallen down and sustained fracture to nasal bone. The incident happened because of some other reason. De facto complainant was constructing a commercial flat in the adjacent building where piling was going on and as a result, the small house of petitioner collapsed. In spite of this, de facto complainant continued the work and though representations were made by petitioner before the authorities nobody heeded to the grievances. [B.A.No.44/09] 2 The de facto complainant approached this Court for police protection, which was denied by making certain observations against de facto complainant stating that he may move the civil court, if so advised. He did not move the civil court but continued with the piling work so as to create problem to the peaceful living of petitioners in the partly destructed house. Because of this, there was some altercation and an unfortunate incident happened. The charge-sheet has already been filed and if petitioners surrender before Magistrate Court it is likely that they will be remanded and hence this petition. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that 4th petitioner is not an accused in this case. The other petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3. Charge-sheet has already been laid and police does not require petitioners for investigation. He also submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) The prayer for anticipatory bail by 4th petitioner is rejected as infructuous. [B.A.No.44/09] 3 2) Petitioners 1 to 3 shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned and they shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like to the satisfaction of learned Magistrate on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, bail is liable to be cancelled. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.