IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3405 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.391 OF 2009 OF ARANMULA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------------- PRAKASH, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, THADATHIL VEETTIL, KODANGANNOOR P.O., KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARANMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3405 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused No.2 in Crime No.391 of 2009 of Aranmula Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324, 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have gone through the case diary and the wound certificate. 4. The case of the defacto complainant is that he was not very much pleased with the proposal made by one of the accused persons to marry the sister of the wife of the defacto complainant. On account of that matter, there was an altercation between the defacto complainant and the accused and the defacto complainant sustained injury. In respect of that incident, he had filed a petition before the police. It is stated that the present incident occurred and the accused attacked the defacto complainant on account of the vengeance of reporting the matter to the police on the earlier occasion. BA No.3405/2009 2 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injury and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is 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 csl