IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 481 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.629/2009 OF NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SHIBU KUMAR, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, IYANIYARATHALAKIZHAKKUMKARAVEEDU, PERUMPAZHATHOOR P.O. 2. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 24,S/O.SISUPALAN, MUTHUKUNNATHUMELILPUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPAZHATHOOR P.O. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA SRI.M.C.RATNAKARAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATION HOUSE OFFICER NEYYATTINKARA POLICE STATION REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010 ALONG WITH BA NO. 93 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. Nos. 93 & 481 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 O R D E R B.A.No.93/2010 is filed by accused No.2 in Crime No.629/2009 of Neyyattinkara Police Station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.481/2010 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 in that crime for the same purpose. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 324, 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The petitioners and the first accused had filed B.A. No.5800/2009 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by the order dated 28/10/2009. 4. While disposing of B.A.No.5800/2009, Case Diary was perused and arguments were heard in detail and it was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, it was not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners B.A. No. 93 & 481 of 2010 2 submitted that while disposing of B.A. No.5800/2009, the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor was that two of the accused were to be identified and that it could not be said whether Anilkumar and Shibu would be made accused in the case. Anilkumar and Shibu are the petitioners in B.A.No.481/2010. Even at the time when it was not sure whether Anilkumar and Shibu were to be included in the array of accused, the application filed by them for anticipatory bail was dismissed on the grounds mentioned therein. At present, it is clear that they are accused Nos.3 and 4. 5. I have perused the Case Diary again and I have also considered the Accident Register cum Wound Certificate and also the Discharge Card. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are grievous in nature. There are several cut injuries. The de facto complainant had also sustained compound fracture of second metacarpal and compound fracture at the joint of right thumb. The prosecution case is that swords were used by accused Nos.1 to 3 for inflicting the injuries on the de facto complainant. B.A. No. 93 & 481 of 2010 3 6. I am of the view that there are no grounds for entertaining another application for anticipatory bail when the application filed by the accused was dismissed earlier. There is no change of circumstances either. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm