IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6294 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRMP.2879/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.208/08 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTA GUPTHAN, PALANKUZHI VEEDU, VALAMPILIMANGALAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6294 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 308 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner, along with other accused, in furtherance of common intention allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant and on a complaint filed by him, a crime was registered under Sections 324, 308 and 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the co- accused were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge. The application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the weapon is not recovered. The petitioner's father and the de facto complainant were on inimical terms with each other, since a long time. A complaint has already been filed against the de facto complainant before the police and the RDO, with respect to certain disputes. On account of this, the de facto complainant and others trespassed into the property of the petitioner while the petitioner and his close relatives were engaged in agricultural operation, and assaulted them by using weapons. 4. The petitioner's teeth were broken in the course of the attack and a crime was registered on the basis of a statement given BA.6294/08 2 by the petitioner against the de facto complainant and two others under Sections 341, 324 and 326 IPC. The present complaint is lodged only as a counter blast to the crime registered on the basis of the complaint given by the petitioner, it is submitted. The petitioner is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. But, offence under Section 308 IPC is included with a view to harass the petitioners, it is submitted. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are two lacerated injuries on the de facto complainant on the head and it is alleged that a spade handle was used for the assault. The petitioner is required for the purpose of recovery of weapon used, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I find that except offence under Section 308 IPC, the other offence involved is a bailable offence. It is also clear from the documents produced that an attack was allegedly made on the petitioner also using weapon, in which the petitioner's teeth were broken and a crime was registered under Section 326 IPC. The weapon used by the first accused is a spade handle and according to him, he was engaged in agricultural work in their property. Taking all the above facts into consideration, I find that for the purpose of bail, offence under Section 308 IPC can BA.6294/08 3 be treated as not included in this case. It is made clear that it may be so treated by police as well as court. But, I do not find it fit to grant anticipatory bail, since weapon is to be recovered. 6. The crime is registered as early as on 26.8.2008 and the petitioner was not available for arrest so far. Hence, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co- operate with the investigation within seven days from today. With this direction and observation, petition is disposed of. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.