IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3896 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.205/10 OF NILESHWARAM POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD. (S): PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ KAMARUDDEEN,S/O.CHIRAMMAL AHAMMED, AGED 25 YEARS,NALUPURAPATTIL HOUSE, THAIKKADAPPURAM.P.O,NILESHWAR,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NILESHWARAM POLICE STATION,KASARAGOD. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3896 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 13th July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner (A3) along with four others, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and assaulted defacto complainant, using soda bottle and committed various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. There was a clash between two groups of people, who are workers of NDF and Muslim League. Petitioner happened to be at the scene, but he was not involved in the offence. Petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence as the third accused. It is also submitted that offence under Section 308 Indian Penal Code is included only with a view to harass the petitioner. Though a soda bottle was used for the offence, there is only a lacerated wound. It is also submitted that even as per the prosecution case, soda bottle was only thrown BA NO. 3896/10 2 against defacto complainant by the accused. Still, offence under Section 308 IPC is included. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations in the F.I. Statement, petitioner is the person who had thrown the soda bottle against defacto complainant. He has no reason to implicate the petitioner falsely. However, it is conceded that defacto complainant sustained only one lacerated injury. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Regarding the non-involvement of petitioner, there are only bare assertions. In the first information statement itself, his name is mentioned. However, taking into account the nature of injury sustained and the manner in which the incident happened, I am satisfied that petitioner has a strong and arguable case regarding the involvement of offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation without any delay. Hence, the following order is passed: (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating BA NO. 3896/10 3 Officer or the Magistrate Court concerned and co-operate with the investigation. (2) On such surrender, the offence involved in this case will be treated as one under Section 324 IPC, instead of 308 Indian Penal Code, for the purpose of bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs