IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5098 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.445/2009 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------- JEEMON AGED 23 S/O.RAJEEVAN, AZHIKKAKATHU THOPPIL, PURAKKADU PO, AMABALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.GIRISH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5098 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.445 of 2009 of Chavara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 2.7.2009, at 7.30 P.M., while the de facto complainant was sitting in a shop, he was attacked by the accused persons. The first accused attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the hospital. Later, he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. Even after discharge, he had to go to the Medical College hospital for treatment of head injuries. The medical records would show that the de facto complainant had sustained head injuries as well. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though originally four accused persons were implicated in the case, BA No.5098/2009 2 names of accused Nos.3 and 4 were later deleted. As per the order dated 18.8.2009 in Bail Application No.3999 of 2009, anticipatory bail was granted to accused No.2. The case of accused No.1 stands on a different footing. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the overt acts alleged against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner/first accused. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl