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. 3607 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.169/2009 OF VILAPPILSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................. PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- TITUS, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.SATHYANADAN, SHAJI BHAVAN, AMBALATHINVILA, KATTAYKODE P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3607 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.169/2009 of Vilappilsala Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 308 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary. 4. The allegation is that the defacto complainant, who is an autorikshaw driver, while going in the Autorikshaw, the accused pelted heavy granite stones over the Autorikshaw several times. The defacto complainant sustained injuries and he was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital for several days. The wound certificate would also disclose considerably serious injuries. However, there is no section of offence mentioned, corresponding to the injury sustained by the defacto complainant. B.A. No. 3607/2009 Page numbers 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained, 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 any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm