IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6017 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO.313/2009 OF MALAYINKEEAZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- CHANDRA BANU AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN, KUNNUVILAKATHU MELEPUTHEN VEEDU, MACHEL.P.O., MALAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.NITHIN JACOB SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6017 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 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 accused in Crime No. 313/2009 of Malayinkeeazhu Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 1/9/2009 at 3.30 P.M, while the de facto complainant was in the market, he was stabbed by the accused. The de facto complainant sustained injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the F.I. Statement, the de facto complainant has not stated the name of the accused. On the other hand, it is stated that an identifiable person has committed the offence. According to the petitioner, he is known to the de facto complainant and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not the person who is involved in the offence. B.A. No.6017/2009 2 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the materials collected during the investigation reveals that the petitioner has committed the offence. There is nothing to indicate that the de facto complainant knew the petitioner earlier. The injury sustained by the de facto complainant is a stab injury. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I am of the view that 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation would be required in the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm