IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4053 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 37/2007 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SHAMEER, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANJAPPARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. S.M. ALTHAF RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ------------------------- B.A. No. 4053 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.37/2007 of Chadayamangalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following:- The defacto complainant, the injured and others were taking food and drink in a Bar Hotel. At that time, a vehicle driven by the first accused was parked near the Bar Hotel. The first accused remained in the vehicle. The other accused persons went to the Bar Hotel, effected a blast with an explosive substance and attacked the injured with sword stick and other weapons. It is stated that the injured was attacked with the weapons on several times by the accused persons. The injured was admitted in the hospital. The First Information Statement was given by one Sunil Kumar, who was also in the company of the injured but who had gone out of the room at the relevant time for making a telephone B.A. No. 4053 of 2009 2 call. 4. As per order in Bail Application No. 2636/2007 dated 04.05.2007, Anticipatory Bail was granted to the first accused, on the ground that the first accused, who was an M.B.A. student, had taken the other accused persons without knowing the intention of the other accused persons. The grant of Anticipatory Bail to the first accused is not relevant at all in considering the present application for Anticipatory Bail. 5. The incident occurred on 5.02.2007. The petitioner could not be arrested till now as he was not available in the locality. The facts and circumstances narrated above would show that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I have perused the Case Diary. Though the victim had sustained injuries and though dangerous weapons were used for the offence, Section 324 is not seen added. The Investigating Officer shall seriously consider the matter and shall take the necessary steps. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln B.A. No. 4053 of 2009 3