IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3428 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.379/2010 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. SABU.P.R, S/O.RAGHAVAN,AGED 35 YEARS, CONTRACTOR,O.C.LINE QUARTERS, KANNADIPPARAMBA PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. SHYAM KUMAR.K.S,S/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, KANDASSERIYIL,KUNAMMAVE PO, KAVIL NADA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM(CRIME NO.379/2010 OF VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION,KANNUR DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3428 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, on 23.04.2010 at about 10.45 P.M., petitioners (A1 and A2) intercepted the car driven by the de facto complainant and assaulted him using iron pipe and iron rod. Third accused was also attacked him and the de facto complainant sustained injuries and thereby, the accused committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that de facto complainant and his associates are goondas in the locality. They have, in fact, attacked the petitioners, who are accused nos. 1 and 2 and they had also gone to the hospital on sustaining injuries. At the instance of the de facto complainant, offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is included and there is no allegation against second accused that he committed any overt acts. The injury sustained by the de facto B.A. No. 3428 / 2010 2 complainant are minor and hence petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the F.I. Statement, both petitioners assaulted by de facto complainant using iron pipe and iron rod. There are corresponding injuries also, on the de facto complainant. He was admitted in the hospital. He sustained fracture to the mandible and other multiple lacerated wounds on the head. He had history of vomiting and other injuries also. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents produced Annexure-2(A) and (B) and the wound certificate issued to the de facto complainant, and on considering the various facts and circumstances, I find that the nature of the allegations made against petitioners are serious. Though the de facto complainant is stated to be a goonda, he sustained various lacerated wounds on his head, and other parts of the body including a fracture to the mandible. But, the petitioners had only complaints of body pain, as revealed from the documents B.A. No. 3428 / 2010 3 produced. In such circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioners in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln