IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 622 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.351/2009 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION, HARIPAD PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 ----------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.SIVASANKARA PILLAI, NEDUTHARAYIL, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, RETNABHAVANAM, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (OASIS) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE, OFFICER, KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION HARIPAD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.622 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.351 of 2009 of Kanakakunnu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 307, 326 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 25.10.2009, accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked the husband of the de facto complainant with sword sticks. The husband of the de facto complainant sustained serious injuries which includes a deep incised wound and also fracture of tibia. He was admitted in the hospital on the date of the incident and he was referred to the Medical College Hospital. It would appear that the police did not register any crime probably because no intimation was sent from the hospital. The wife of the injured filed a complaint before the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Haripad which was BA No.622/2010 2 forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, the crime was registered. In the complaint, the de facto complainant has stated that her husband could not move about as a result of the injury sustained by him and therefore, the complaint was being preferred by her. The de facto complainant had produced a photograph of her husband to show that he was not in a position to move about. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity 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 petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 csl