IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6156 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.548/2008 OF KADAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED --------------------------- 1. OMANA, W/O. VARGHESE, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VAUALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ROYMOL, D/O. OMANA, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VAUALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. JOSEKUTTY @ JOSEPH, MULLAKKARA VEEDU, MOONGADU MURI, AANAKULAM, ALAYAMON VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 4. REENA VARGHESE, D/O. OMANA, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VAUALA MURI, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6156 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 326, 294(b) and 506 (II) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively. According to prosecution, some coconuts were plucked from a property, over which, the defacto complainant's daughter and son-in-law have no right and hence, the defacto complainant resisted the same, while accused nos.1 and 2 assaulted him by using stick. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the defacto complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is having illicit relationship with another woman. He came to the property with the said lady and there was some altercation between first wife and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was drunk heavily and he fell down and sustained some injuries. Though the incident occurred as early as on 23.5.2008, the crime was lodged only on BA No.6156/08 2 5.8.2008, after three months. No complaint was filed before the police, but, only a private complaint was filed, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there was an allegation that chilly powder was spread and the defacto complainant was beaten with stick. He also sustained a fracture, laceration on the forehead etc. The defacto complainant is a man aged 76 years and the wound certificate does not show that he was under the influence of alcohol or at least he was smelling alcohol. It is pointed out that there are records to show that the defacto complainant was hospitalised as early as on 23.5.2008 at 5 p.m. on the allegation of assault by the wife and the daughter, who are petitioners 1 and 2. 5. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that the weapon allegedly used in the offence is not so far recovered and the petitioners presence would be required for interrogation and recovery. It is also submitted that petitioners 3 and 4 are not accused in the case and the police does not intend to arrest them. These submissions are recorded and hence, no ground exists to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 3 and 4. 6. On going through the case diary and on hearing both BA No.6156/08 3 sides, I am satisfied that the defacto complainant, who is aged 76 years, was injured and hospitalised in a Government hospital, as early as on 23.5.2008 on the allegation of assault by petitioners and the police was also informed. It also appears that a weapon was used in the offence. Even though first and the second accused are women, in an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, especially since even the weapon of offence is not so far recovered and their interrogation will be necessary for the recovery. 7. It is seen from the records that the incident occurred as early as on May 2008 and the petitioners could not be arrested or interrogated even after the expiry of four months. Therefore, petitioners are directed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned or before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation, within ten days from today. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl