IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 211 of 2010 CRIME NO.1856 OF 2009 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER: 1ST ACCUSED: -------------------------------- SELVAN @ SELVARAJ, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 30 YEARS, ALLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NARAKKAL. BY ADV. SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARAKKAL POLICE STATION, NARAKKAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 211 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R 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.1856 of 2009 of Narakkal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 326, 341 and 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.12.2009, the accused persons, six in number, attacked the de facto complainant with iron rods. The de facto complainant sustained fracture of nasal bone and left ulna. 4. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution case is that the first accused caught hold of the de facto complainant and at that time, accused No.2 inflicted grievous injuries B.A. NO. 211 OF 2010 :: 2 :: on the de facto complainant with iron rod and accused Nos.3 to 5 beat him with hands and kicked him. 5. Accused Nos.2 to 5 filed B.A.No.7863 of 2009 for anticipatory bail. As per the order dated 13.1.2010, anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.3 to 5 and the Bail Application was dismissed in so far as it related to accused No.2. The ground on which anticipatory bail was granted to accused Nos.3 to 5 was that the overt acts allegedly committed by them are not attributable to the grievous injuries sustained by the de facto complainant. 6. The case against the petitioner stands on a different footing. The allegation is that the petitioner (first accused) caught hold of the de facto complainant and restrained him in order to facilitate accused No.2 to assault the de facto complainant and to cause grievous injuries. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 B.A. NO. 211 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 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 ahz/