O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.342 of 2021 of Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 323, 324, 326 and 294(b) read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. The crime was registered on the basis of the following allegations:

There was a persisting dispute between the de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner in relation to a pathway. At about 7.00 p.m. on 01.10.2021 while the de facto complainant was on his way back to house and when he reached the disputed pathway, the petitioners due to the previous enmity attacked the de facto complainant. The 1st petitioner uttered obscene words and hit the de facto complainant over his mouth by using a granite piece. The 2nd petitioner hit the de facto complainant at his face using a wooden piece and during the course the 3rd petitioner had been catching hold of the de facto complainant. The petitioners 1 and 2 also kicked the de facto complainant down. As a result of the attack, one tooth of the de facto complainant was lost and another dislocated.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor is placed on record of the Inspector of Police, Thrikkunnapuzha Police Station.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incident was not a unilateral attack as alleged by the prosecution, but it occurred as a ruckus following dispute with respect to the pathway. The learned counsel contended that not as a result of any assault, but on falling down during the commotion, the de facto complainant lost his tooth. It is further submitted that from Annexures B to D it is quite evident that the petitioners sustained injuries in the incident and complaint in that regard was submitted before the police. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners not being the aggressors, they are entitled to get anticipatory bail.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there is a civil dispute between the parties and in the light of the existing factional conflict, release of the petitioners on bail will result in breach of peace in the locality, and also affect the smooth investigation in the case.

8. On a perusal of the accident register-cum-would certificate produced along with the report of the investigating officer, it is prima facie evident that the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries in the incident. When there are serious injuries not only on the face, but also on other parts of the body of the de facto complainant, it is not able to say that his tooth was lost on a fall, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The investigation is in its initial stage. It is seen that the weapons allegedly used to attack the de facto complainant were recovered from the scene of occurrence. But entire remaining part of the investigation has to be carried on by the police.

9. It is seen from Annexure B that a complaint was lodged by the daughter of the 1st petitioner in police on 02.10.2021,. Annexure C would show that the 1st petitioner was treated from 01.10.2021 onwards. But from the above documents, it cannot be said that the 1st petitioner sustained injuries in the same incident. Hence, the contention that the incident had occurred not as alleged by the prosecuting agency cannot immediately be accepted.

10. If the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail at this stage, it will naturally affect the smooth investigation in the case. Taking all those matter into consideration, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Tthe application is therefore dismissed.