IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5096 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.231/2008 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN, OORAKATHUVILA VEEDU, MUNDAPLAVILA, PARASSALA. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARASSALA POLICE STATION, PARASSALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.5096 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 325 and 308 of IPC. According to the prosecution, while defacto complainant was going to the office, petitioner inflicted cut injury with a chopper on the head of the defacto complainant. Thereafter, when he fell down, petitioner bite off his lip and on the basis of his statement, a crime is registered under Sections 325 and 308 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is a case in counter and on the statement given by the petitioner, a crime was registered against the defacto complainant. He had used the chopper against the petitioner and he also sustained injury. It is also submitted that the petitioner was attacked by the defacto complainant and not vice-versa. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the chopper was used by the petitioner. The BA No.5096/08 2 incident happened as early as on 1.4.2008 and the petitioner could not arrested so far, and on the facts of this case, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. 5. I am satisfied of the submissions made by the learned public prosecutor. At this stage, petitioner's innocence nor the right of private defence is not established, for want of sufficient materials. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl