IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4403 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.1509/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM CRIME NO.369/08 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------------- RENJAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O PANIKKAN, PAYARRATTU, MOOTHEDATHUKAVU, T.V. PURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 4403 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 321, 324, 323 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 11.6.2008 at about 10.15 PM, the petitioner, along with others, assaulted the son of the de facto complainant with weapons and he sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner sustained injuries at the hands of the de facto complainant and others. A crime was registered against them as Crime No.371 of 2008. Medical certificate is also produced along with this petition. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the de facto complainant is an old man, aged 62 years and he has already lost his tooth. But it is not correct to say that he lost tooth in the course of the incident. The co-accused are granted regular bail and the petitioner, who is the first accused, may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. According to prosecution, the petitioner, who is the first accused, used an iron rod and beat the de facto complainant and injury was caused to the upper lip and he MA.4403/08 2 lost three teeth and another tooth was loosened. These injuries were noted by the doctor in the wound certificate. There were abrasions also on the lip and mouth. The weapon used is not recovered. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, it appears that there was an attack and counter attack, if the allegations made are true. The de facto complainant and his son sustained injuries. The doctor noted the injuries sustained by then and it may not be correct to conclude at this stage that de facto complainant had no tooth before. It is also not possible to conclude at this stage that the de facto complainant was the aggressor, since nothing is pointed out to come to such conclusion. In such circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, especially since recovery of the weapon allegedly used by the petitioner is to be effected, pursuant to an interrogation by the police. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.