IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 3498 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.133/2008 OF VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION PETITIONERS: ACCUSED 1 & 2: ------------------------------- 1. JAIMON.K.ABRAHAM, KANATHIAL HOUSE, PANNIAYARKUTTY KARA, KOANNATHADI VILLAGE, PONMUDI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. JESSIE, W/O.JAIMON, KANATHIAL HOUSE, PANNIAYARKUTTY KARA, KOANNATHADI VILLAGE, PONMUDI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 3498 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the defacto-complainant, petitioners assaulted him when he objected to their walking along his property on the claim of a right of pathway. The 1st petitioner cut him with a chopper and he sustained injury on the shoulder. A crime was registered under sections 447, 308 read with section 34 IPC. Petitioners are husband and wife. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 2nd petitioner has been deleted from the array of the accused. The submission is recorded. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present case is only a counter blast to Annexure-A FIR which was registered on the basis of a statement given by the 1st petitioner. According to him, the 1st petitioner and his wife had gone for agricultural activity and when they were returning to their house, they found that the way which was used by them for the past 30 years was blocked by installing reapers. When they removed the same, the defacto-complainant and others rushed to the spot and assaulted them. The 1st petitioner also sustained injury and he was BA 3498/08 -2- hospitalized and he gave the statement on the very same day. It was pointed out that the defacto-complainant in this case had filed the complaint only on the next day knowing that a crime is registered against him on the statement made by the 1st petitioner. In such circumstances, it is submitted that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 4. The application is opposed. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the 1st petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of the weapon used. An injury has been inflicted by the 1st petitioner using a chopper on the shoulder of the defacto-complainant . 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there was an attack and a counter attack by both sides. But, at this stage on the submission made, it is not possible to identify the aggressor. Hence, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail, especially since the weapon is not recovered. In the result, the application is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. mn.