IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7822 of 2008() ----------------------------- CC.10/2008 of J.M.F.C., KODUNGALLUR CRIME NO.1021/2008 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ---------------- KALESH, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, RESIDING AT NEDUMURI HOUSE, P.O.MADAAVANNA, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT : ----------------- STATE OF KERALA, (REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------ B.A. No.7822 OF 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 341, 324, 326 read with 34 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, petitioner (first accused) along with two others allegedly wrongfully restrained defacto complainant and assaulted him with iron rod and inflicted injuries. He sustained grievous hurt. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Some persons would have assaulted the defacto complainant, but the petitioner's name is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and he is falsely implicated subsequently. The alleged motive stated in the First Information Statement is that petitioner approached defacto complainant to settle the case, which was filed against petitioner and since he was not willing, he was allegedly assaulted. 4. The copy of the judgment in the said case, C.C.10/08, is produced as Annexure A1. It is submitted that the trial in B.A.No.7822 of 2008 2 that case commenced on 25.09.2008 and witnesses were questioned and they all turned hostile to the prosecution and there was no reason for petitioner to approach the defacto complainant to settle the case. He was also acquitted in the said case as per Annexure A1 judgment. So, the motive alleged in the F.I. Statement is absolutely false and that itself will indicate that defacto complainant was creating some reason or other to implicate petitioner in the crime. 5. On going through the case diary, and on perusal of wound certificate, it is seen that the alleged cause of injury stated to doctor by defacto complainant was that he was assaulted by “persons who are identifiable by sight”. It is revealed from the F.I. Statement itself that the petitioner is acquainted with the defacto complainant earlier and they had other dealings between them also. 6. In the above circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner may be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that it is only just and proper that petitioner is given an opportunity to establish his B.A.No.7822 of 2008 3 defence, but in case, he is arrested and remanded to custody, it will result injustice especially if ultimately, he establishes his defence during trial. Hence, the following order is passed. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.10,000/- with two solvent sureties each for like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting officer on the following conditions : i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. ii) Petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. The petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac