IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3933 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.278/2010 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION,THRISSUR) .................... APPLICANTS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. JAYAPRAKASH AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.KASAN, KAKKARAKUNNU HOUSE, KUMBALAKODE. 2. RATHEESH, AGED 30 YEARS,S/O.CHELLA, KAKKARAKUNNU HOUSE, KUMBALAKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL), SMT.R.RAJITHA. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3933 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioners(A2 and A2) in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him by using a chopper and thereby he sustained injuries and accused committed various offences stated above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners are absolutely innocent of the allegations made him that the de facto complainant is a known goonda in the locality. First accused in this case and one Jayakrishnan were attacked by de facto complainant earlier and crime was also registered in respect of the same incident. De facto complainant was insisting that the first accused and said Jayakrishnan shall withdraw the case. Since harassment became intolerable, the said Jayakrishanan committed suicide. Thereafter, de facto complainant was insisting the first accused to withdraw the complaint. While so, first and second accused while travelling in an autorickshaw and they were intercepted by de facto complainant and B.A. No. 3933 / 2010 2 they were attacked. They did not make any complaint, since they were scared that the de facto complainant would again harass them. The allegations made in the case are not correct, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that de facto complainant in this case sustained serious injuries. There were as many as four incised wounds. A chopper was used in this case. It is not recovered. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, the fact that chopper is not recovered, the need for custodial interrogation, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Though the petitioners counsel put forward a counter allegation, there is nothing on record to substantiate or probabilise the same. The incident happened as early as on 29.05.2010. Petitioners are bound to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln