IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1244 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CRMP.4009/2009 of D.C.& SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.1679 OF 2009 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. SUNIL.A.K., S/O. KUNJU, AGED 32 YEARS, KUMBAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, KOLANI.P.O., MANAKKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. BIJU.A.N. S/O. NEELAKANTAN, AGED 32, BLOCK-NO.171,KALLAR.P.O., NEDUMKANDUM VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.1244 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 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.1679 of 2009 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 323, 326 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9/11/2009 at 8.30 P.M., while the de facto complainant was returning from the shop, he was caught hold of by accused No.1 and he was unlawfully restrained by him. At that time, accused No.2 hit him. Accused No.1 assaulted him with stone tied in a bath towel. The de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in the hospital on 9/11/2009. He was discharged from the hospital on 17/11/2009. The wound certificate discloses that the victim had sustained multiple fracture of maxilla. It is stated that there was a dispute between the de facto complainant and the B.A. No.1244 /2010 2 3rd accused on account of a lottery ticket. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the de facto complainant on the request of accused No.3, accused Nos. 1 and 2 being the friends of accused No.3. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. The de facto complainant had sustained serious injuries. He was in the hospital for nine days. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm