IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4114 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 613/2009 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 5: --------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMESH, AGED 35 YEARS, VANCHIPURA HOUSE, KOZHIPARAMBIL, KAIPAMANGALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SOORYAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. SIDHARTHAN, PULIKKAL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, CHENDRAPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. MANEESH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O. MANOHARAN, ERANPURAKKAL, CHAMAKKALA, CHENDRAPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. RAMESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAN, KOCHIKKATTU HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, CHENDRAPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. SALIN @ SALESH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O. SASI, KALASSERY HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA, CHENDRAPINNI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4114 of 2009 ----------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 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 to 5 in Crime No.613/2009 of Mathilakom Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 326 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the first petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2009. Therefore, the Bail Application has become infructuous, in so far as, it relates to the first petitioner. I have gone through the Case Diary and wound certificate. The defacto complainant has sustained 12 injuries including fracture. I have also considered the allegations in the F.I. Statement and the averments in paragraph 2 of the Bail Application. It is not proper at this stage to arrive at a finding on this aspect while disposing the application for Anticipatory Bail. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A.No. 4114 of 2009 2 case, the nature of the offence and the injury sustained by the defacto complainant, I am of the view that petitioners are not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln