IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 635 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRMP.200/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.349/2009 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2: --------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.SEKHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, VADAKKEKARA, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. 2. BOSE, S/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, VADAKKEKARA, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 635 of 2010 ----------------------------- Dated this the 3rd 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 petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.349/2009 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners moved for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Palakkad, which was dismissed as per the order dated 27/01/2010. By the order dated 11/01/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Palakkad, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos. 3 to 5. 4. The de facto complainant is the younger brother of the first accused. The second accused is the son of the first accused. The prosecution case is that on 25/12/2009 at 6.15 A.M, the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, forcibly entered into the residential B.A. No. 635 /2010 2 compound of the de facto complainant armed with deadly weapons and attacked him and caused injuries to him. The de facto complainant was taken to a hospital at Palakkad and on their advice, he was taken to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore. The Accident Register cum wound certificate maintained by K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore discloses eight injuries on different parts of the body of the de facto complainant. The injuries include several cut injuries. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused had also sustained injuries due to an attack made by the de facto complainant and that the de facto complainant is the aggressor. While disposing of this Bail Application, it is not necessary to arrive at a conclusion as to who was the aggressor. 6. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are serious in nature. Dangerous weapons were allegedly used for the commission of the offence. In spite of the fact that the de facto complainant and the first accused are brothers, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the B.A. No. 635 /2010 3 petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm