IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2010 / 5TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 189 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.856/09 OF MUNNAR POLICE STATION,IDUKKI DISTRICT) PETITIONER: ---------------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O.YOHANNAN, EDATT HOUSE, VIRIPARAKARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI. 2. RAJAN, S/O.GEORGE, THATTANPARAMBIL HOUSE, VIRIPARAKKARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.AATHIRA T.DAS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNNAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.189 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th 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 4 in Crime No.856/2009 of Munnar Police Station, Idukki. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294(b), 323 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25/12/2009, the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the de facto complainant. The first accused stabbed the de facto complainant with a knife. The other accused kicked on the abdomen of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that the accused persons uttered obscene words to the first informant. 4. Accused No.1(first petitioner) was arrested on 13/1/2010. Therefore, this Bail Application has become infructuous in so far as it relates to the first accused (first petitioner). B.A. No.189 /2010 2 5. All other accused, except accused No.4, were arrested. The investigating officer suspects that the weapon of offence is kept by accused No.4. The weapon is to be recovered after arresting accused No.4. The offenece alleged against the accused persons is serious in nature. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case,the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the second petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the second petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the second petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the second petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application filed by the second petitioner (accused No.4) is dismissed. The Bail Application in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (accused No.1) is dismissed as infructuous and it is dismissed on merits in so far as it relates to the second petitioner (accused No.4) in the manner indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm