IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5804 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.258 OF 2008 OF PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED (NOT IN CUSTODY) : ------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAN @ KUTTAN, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNOOR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS,S/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNOOR, TALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUDHA, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNOOR, TALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. MEENAKSHI, AGED 66 YEARS,W/O.MADHAVAN, ANGALOOR HOUSE, MAYANNOOR, TALAPPILY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, S.I.OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNOOR POLICE STATION, PAZHAYANNOOR, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.5804 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 to 4, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted the defacto complainant and his brother, using iron rod and caused grievous hurt to the defacto complainant's brother, by pelting stones. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a case and a counter case and the petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made. The offence was originally registered under Section 324 of I.P.C. and on his information, no grievous hurt is caused. The petitioners are not required for the purpose of interrogation and recovery. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a fracture is caused to the defacto complainant's brother and he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. It is true that there is another crime also in connection with the same incident and hence, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3 and 4, who are women. But as far as accused Nos.1 and 2 concerned, he opposed the anticipatory bail application, since they will be required B.A.5804 of 2008 2 for interrogation. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted to accused Nos.3 and 4 alone. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. The request over anticipatory bail by accused Nos.1 and 2 is rejected. 2. Accused Nos.3 and 4 shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer on the following conditions: (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by police. (ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation. (iii) They shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is partly allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac