GOPALA PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners three in number seek anticipatory bail on the allegation that they are apprehending arrest by the Pandalam Police in connection with Crime No. 559/06 registered for offences punishable under Sections 326, 341 and 451 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C.

(2.) The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the 3rd petitioner who was originally the 3rd accused has been deleted from the array of the accused. So, the apprehension entertained by the 3rd petitioner is unfounded. With regard to the petitioners 1 and 2 the 2nd petitioner is the 60 year old wife of the first petitioner and no overt act of assault by the 2nd petitioner (A2) is alleged also. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner who is the 2nd accused. In the case of the first accused who is the main offender who had inflicted head injuries including a fracture on the de facto complainant with a stone, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.. There is no reason why he should not surrender before the Magistrate and seek regular bail.

(3.) Accordingly, if the first accused (first petitioner) surrenders before the Magistrate and files an application for regular bail within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day on which it is filed.