IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6326 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1114/2009 OF NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED NO.1 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. THANZEER, S/O.ABDUL VAHAB, SUNITHA MANZIL, ARASUPARAMBU, NEDUMANGAD. 2. JASEEM, S/O.JAMAL, JASEEM MANZIL, KOPPAM, ARASUPARAMPU, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6326 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime No.1114 of 2009 of Nedumangad Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained by the defacto complainant, the nature of weapons used and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in favour of the petitioners. The Bail application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.6326/2009 2