IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3694 of 2009 CRIME NO.217 OF 2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2: -------------------------------------- 1. M.BRIJESH, S/O. CHANDAKUNHI, AGED 25, RESIDING AT THALAKKADU HOUSE, KATTUTHALA, CHERUVATHOOR. 2. M.VADYADHARAN, S/O. AMBU, MOOLAKKAL HOUSE, VENGOD, CHERUVATHOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.SARASWATHI PALEREKEEZHIL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3694 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.217 of 2009 of Chandera Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 294(b) and 332 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 28.5.2009 at 6 PM, while the de facto complainant was driving a KSRTC bus, it was obstructed by the accused persons, who stopped an autorickshaw just in front of the bus. The de facto complainant could not take the bus. Thereafter, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant. 4. I have gone through the case diary. 5. In the nature of the allegations made, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not the nature of the injury caused B.A. NO. 3694 OF 2009 :: 2 :: on the body of the de facto complainant that matters. In cases like this, the inconvenience caused to the general public is also to be taken note of and the gravity of the offence under Section 332 has to be decided in the light of the same. If so, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/