IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2010 / 26TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2005 of 2010 ----------------------------- CRIME NO.379/2010 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION CRMP.657/2010 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------- SHAMNAD S/O SALAHUDHEEN, AGED 34, CHARUVILA VEEDU, PLACHERY P.O., PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Bail Application No.2005 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest connected with Crime No. 379/2010 of Punalur Police Station in which offences punishable under Sections 341, 120B, 324, 326 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. are involved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on account of the enmity due to family disputes with regard to a property and litigation thereon, petitioner along with five others attacked the defacto complainant whereby he sustained injuries. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the BA No.2005 of 2010 - 2 - above crime which is now in progress. The grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries are also relevant facts which persuade this Court to decline the relief of anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K. Mohanan, Judge ttb