IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1525 of 2010 CRIME NO.65 OF 2010 OF CHAVARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------- SUNI, SUNAMI COLONY,PALLIPURAYIDOM, CHITTOOR, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY,KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1525 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th 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 petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.65 of 2010 of Chavara Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Though, originally offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also alleged, that was subsequently deleted. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it was revealed during investigation that accused No.1 is not involved in the offence and therefore, he was deleted from the array of accused. 4. The prosecution case is that on 15.1.2010 at 9.30 PM, while the de facto complainant was going to his house, he was B.A. NO. 1525 OF 2010 :: 2 :: restrained by the accused and he was beaten by the accused with GI pipes. The de facto complainant sustained injuries. He was admitted originally in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Karunagappally. Later, he was referred to the District Hospital, Kollam. The accident register-cum-wound certificate discloses that the de facto complainant had sustained fracture of left ulna. 5. 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. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/