IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4291 of 2009 CRIME NO.274 OF 2009 OF KATTAKKADA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 & 5 -------------------------------------------- 1. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN NAIR, UDAYA BHAVAN, KOLIAKODU, POOVACHAL, KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SUDHEESH KUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. SUNDARESAN NAIR, VELAMVILAKATHU VEEDU, AANAKODU, PANNIYODU.P.O. KATTAKKADA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU SRI.NITHIN JACOB RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4291 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th August, 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.2 and 5 in Crime No.274 of 2009 of Kattakkada Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners B Bare under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have gone through the case diary. The wound certificate shows that the de facto complainant had sustained a cut injury on the left parietal region of the scalp, 7 – 8 cm in length and having a depth of 1.5 cm. The prosecution case is that the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him with a chopper. The first accused was arrested and he was in judicial custody. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the B.A. NO. 4291 OF 2009 :: 2 :: case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/