IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7139 of 2009() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 481/2009 OF KULATHUPUZHA POLICE STATION ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 : -------------------------------------------- 1. G. JOHNY, S/O. GEORGE, KEEZHUTHU VEEDU, MOTTALUM MOODU, VILLUMALA.P.O, KULATHUPUZHA. 2. JOY @ MATHEW, NITHIN BHAVAN, MALOOR COLLEGE.P.O, PATHANAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA, POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7139 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.481/2009 of Kulathupuzha Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447, 294(b), 354, 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused No.1 was subsequently arrested. Therefore, the Bail Application has become infructuous in so far as it relates to accused No.1 (petitioner No.1). 4. The prosecution case is that on 07.11.2009, the accused persons were found engaged in consuming alcohol near the house of the de facto complainant. The accused had come there in a car and they were found in the public place, near the house of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant questioned the same. The accused abused him. The de facto complainant went B.A. No. 7139 of 2010 2 to his house. After some time, the accused persons went to the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him. The wife of the de facto complainant tried to intervene. She was thrown away by catching hold of her hair. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries including fracture. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that the second petitioner(second accused) is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the second petitioner(second accused), it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed in so far as it relates to the second petitioner(second accused). As stated above, the Bail Application is dismissed as infructuous in so far as it relates to the first petitioner(first accused) and it is dismissed on the merits in so far as it relates to the second petitioner(second accused). K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln