IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 511 of 2009() ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN BA.6897/2008 Dated 17/11/2008 CRIME NO.124/2008 OF MARAYOOR POLCIE STATION, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ----------------------------- MANIKANTAN, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, AGED 29 YEARS, SEMMANDI HOUSE, PUTHOOR KARA, KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOICE GEORGE RESPONDENTS/STATE : ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARAYOOR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------- B.A. No.511 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 326 and 294(b) of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner assaulted the defacto complainant and another, by using a sickle and inflicted injuries. The defacto complainant sustained grievous hurt. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that actually, petitioner was assaulted by the defacto complainant and others and he sustained grievous hurt and he was admitted in the hospital. The medical certificate is produced as Annexure A2, which reveals that he sustained total amputation of the left index finger and also cut injury over right hand and lacerated wound over the scalp and on the left cheek. He has to undergo a plastic surgery. The injuries were sustained when he was defending himself against the assault made by the defacto complainant and his men, it is submitted. A counter case is also registered against the defacto complainant and others. B.A.No.511 of 2009 2 Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that considering the manner in which the offence is committed, as revealed from the case diary, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. Learned Sessions Judge is already come to a finding on the basis of the materials in the case diary that petitioner was the aggressor. The recovery of the weapon used for commission of the offence is to be effected for which purpose, petitioner's interrogation will be required, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, I find that both sides sustained injuries. However, I do not find any special circumstance to invoke provision under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail. The mere existence of a counter case or sustaining an injury in the same incident by itself will not be sufficient to grant anticipatory bail. A reading of the statement of the witnesses in the case diary, which reveals the manner in which the acts were committed, does not persuade me to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. 6. This is the second application for anticipatory bail. B.A.No.511 of 2009 3 Though a direction was issued as per Annexure A8 order dated 17.11.2008 by this court while dismissing the earlier application for anticipatory bail to petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation, in spite of lapse of 3 months, he has not done so. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation and hence, the following order is passed :- i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac