IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3065 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.17/2010 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. G.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, PADMALAYAM HOUSE, ITHOTTUVA MURI, WEST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. MANU @ KOCHU CHERUKKAN, S/O.PARTHASARADHI PILLAI, NADUVILAKKARA THENGUMTHARA THEKKADIL, ITHOTTUVA MURI, WEST KALLADA. 3. SANAL KUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, SUNIL BHAVANAM, ITHOTTUVA, WEST KALLADA. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.A.MUHAMMED RAFFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3065 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 308, 323, 324 & 34 IPC. According to prosecution, on 04/01/2010, at about 10 p.m, petitioners (A1 to A3), in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted de facto complainant and others and inflicted injuries on them by using sword etc. and committed various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in respect of the same incident, another crime is registered. Petitioners were actually assaulted by de facto complainant and others. One of the injured in this case is an Assistant Sub Inspector of police. He, along with others. came to the property of first accused and tried to remove the boat belonging to first accused. This was objected to by first accused while one of the injured in this case, hit first accused with an oar and he sustained injuries. 4. De facto complainant and others are the aggressors. Though petitioners also sustained injuries including a fracture, crime was not registered on the same day, whereas FIR in this crime was B.A No.3065 OF 2010 2 registered as Crime no. 17/2010. Later, a crime was registered against de facto complainant and others on the statement given by first accused in this case. De facto complainant and others did not sustain any serious injuries, but offence under Section 308 is included without any basis, it is submitted. It is also submitted by petitioner's counsel that de facto complainant and others are residing on one side of the river whereas de facto complainant and others came from the other side of the river to commit offences. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is a statement of one witness in the case diary which indicates that the incident started when the boat belonging to first accused was attempted to be removed and he raised protest. It is also conceded that the injury sustained to de facto complainant is a lacerated one, though sword is allegedly used. The sword is not so far recovered. Custodial interrogation will be necessary for recovery of the sword, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the case diary, it appears that the incident happened, when one of the injured in this case attempted to remove the boat belonging to first accused and he raised protest. Immediately, first accused was attacked by one of the injured in this case. Following this, there was a quarrel and both sides attacked each other, as revealed from the statement B.A No.3065 OF 2010 3 of a witness which is available in the case diary. The injury sustained by the injured in this case is a lacerated wound over the occipital region. From the wound certificate, it appears that the injury has not lead to any complications. Except one lacerated injury, no other injury was sustained by both the injured in this case. The weapon allegedly used is sword. 7. It appears from the FIS itself that both the weapons allegedly used by petitioners were picked up from the place of occurrence, when first accused was attacked by one of the injured in this case. One of the injured in this case is an Asst. Sub Inspector of police. It is revealed from the records made available that the third accused sustained a fracture and the second accused sustained loss of tooth. It is likely that if anticipatory bail is not granted, petitioners may suffer irreparable injury and loss. At the same time, petitioners will have to co-operate with investigation. Hence, following order is passed. (1) Petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following condition: B.A No.3065 OF 2010 4 (i) They shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with investigation. (2) This order will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today. In the mean time, whether petitioners are arrested or not, they shall seek regular bail from the court concerned. Petition is disposed of accordingly. vdv K.HEMA, JUDGE