IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2010 / 22TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5761 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.1955/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KALPETTA CRIME NO. 182/2009 OF MEENANGADI POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------ 1. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.POKKERUKUTTY, KUNDUTHODI HOUSE, MEENANGADI PO, SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. 2. MUHAMED SHAFI, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SALAM KUNDUTHODI HOUSE, MEENANGADI PO, SULTAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTEDBY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION,SULTHAN BATHERY, TALUK, WAYANAD DIST BY SRI. V.TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5761 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th 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.182/2009 of Meenangadi Police Station, Wayanad District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25.08.2009 at 9.30 P.M., while the de facto complainant was travelling in an Autorickshaw, the accused persons demanded return of Rs. 5,000/- lent to the de facto complainant. On the refusal of the de facto complainant to re-pay the money, he was attacked by the accused with iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained injuries including fracture on his right leg. It is alleged that the Autorickshaw driver was also attacked by the accused with stone. He also sustained grievous injuries. B.A. No. 5761 of 2009 2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant and his associates destroyed the shops belonging to accused Nos.1 and 2 on 26.08.2009. It is stated that the de facto complainant is a criminal. It is also alleged that the de facto complainant had sustained a fracture on his right leg about two months back due to a fall from the balcony of a Bar Hotel. 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 this is a fit case where Anticipatory Bail can be granted to the petitioners. 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 ln