IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4296 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1099/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KOTTAYAM CRIME NO. 237/2008 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1-2:- --------------------------------------------- 1. GEEMON ABRAHAM @ JEOPPAN, PADINJAREPPALLATHARA, PARAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM.. 2. SHIJU, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 4296 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 341, 323 and 308 read with section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, while the defacto- complainant and his brother-in-law were travelling in an autorickshaw, the petitioners intercepted the defacto-complainant and attacked him by using a knife and he sustained injury on his thigh. He was treated in the Medical College Hospital. The crime was registered on the basis of an First Information Statement given by the defacto-complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent of the allegations made. According to him, petitioners were going in a motor bike, while the defacto-complainant came driving an autorickshaw, and he chased the motor cycle, stopped the same and attacked the petitioners. It is also submitted that the defacto-complainant is a criminal and he is a driver by profession. The petitioners are also drivers and they are on inimical terms with defacto-complainant. BA 4296/08 -2- 4.This application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto-complainant sustained serious injury on his thigh and weapon is not yet recovered. The petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, it is clear that though the petitioners were allegedly attacked by the defacto-complainant, they did not sustain any injury but it was the defacto-complainant who was injured. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the petitioners are required for recovery and interrogation. Hence, the application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.