IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5438 of 2008() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.474/2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- SHAJI, S/O BHANU, PATTATHIL VEEDU, THANNIKONAM, ERATTY VIA, ALAMCODE P.O., BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl.No.5438 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, while the de facto complainant and one Arun were travelling on a motor cycle, petitioner and other accused stopped the vehicle and 2nd and 3rd accused attacked the de facto complainant and he sustained fracture to the jaw. Iron block (knuckle cracker ) was used for committing the offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is falsely implicated in the offence because of a previous incident. On 16.7.2008, petitioner's brother's daughter was kidnapped by friend of the de facto complainant and a complaint was lodged by petitioner on 17.7.2008. Thereafter, there was an attack on the house of the petitioner's brother and a compliant was filed in respect of the said incident also. [B.A.5438/08] Therefore, motivated by this enmity, petitioner is falsely implicated, it is submitted. It also submitted that no overt act is alleged against the petitioner. 4. This petition is opposed. According to prosecution, the de facto complainant is the friend of the person to whom petitioner's brother's daughter was married. De facto complainant has made all arrangements for the marriage of the petitioner's brother's daughter and petitioner had filed a complaint against the de facto complainant also. In an offence of this nature, it is not proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, though no overt act is alleged against the petitioner, it is alleged that petitioner along with others stopped the vehicle and de facto complainant was attacked by accused nos. 2 and 3. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, I do not think it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.