IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1448 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.151/2009 OF VEEYAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN,S/O.PONNAPPAN,ATUMALIL VEEDU, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK,VEEYAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.1448 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.151 of 2009 of Veeyapuram Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 427, 506(ii), 450 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.11.2009, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant, his mother, sister, brother and father with iron rods, chopper and sickle. The de facto complainant sustained very serious injuries. All the other persons also sustained injuries. They were admitted in the hospital. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused injury to the de facto complainant using a sickle. According to the de facto complainant, the accused persons attacked him and others since they got bail in another case. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the BA No.1448/2010 2 learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and others, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted. I do not think that the discretionary relief under Section 438 can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation may be required in the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl