IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 204 of 2009() ---------------------------- (CRIME NO.421/2008 OF ARYANADU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ ACCUSED --------------------------------------- CLEMANT,S/O.KRISHNAN, NELLIVILAKATH VEEDU, VAZHOTTUKONAM, KULAPPADA.P.O,ARYANADU. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARYANADU POLICE STATION, REP; BY THE P.PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl. No. 204 of 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 324, 341 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, first and second accused, who are father and son, along with a neighbour, who is 3rd accused, in furtherance of common intention wrongfully restrained de facto complainant and assaulted him using chopper and sword and inflicted serious injuries. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the 2nd accused and the allegations are false. The de facto complainant and others used to consume liquor and create nuisance in the open place nearby petitioner's house. This was objected to by the neighbours. On the date of occurrence, de facto complainant and others due to this enmity committed house trespass into the house of petitioner and assaulted his mother and also molested her. A private complaint was filed against de facto [B.A.No.204/09] 2 complainant, who accused no.5 in the said case and it was referred to police, but no crime is registered so far. This incident happened on the same day and at the same time. The de facto complainant is having criminal antecedents. The injury sustained by de facto complainant are simple and not serious and hence anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused have assaulted de facto complainant asking whether he would prevent the load of sand being taken away etc. First accused used to a chopper and second accused used a chopper and 3rd accused used iron rod to inflict injures on de facto complainant. He sustained serious injuries on his body. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Recovery of weapons are to be effected and petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the various nature of allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation and recovery of weapons. The mere allegation that there is also a counter-allegation in respect of the incident may not be sufficient to explain the serious injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and allegedly at the same time. I am not [B.A.No.204/09] 3 satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer without day and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, the police is at liberty to arrest him at any time and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.