IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3584 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.238/09 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION PETITIONERS : ACCUSED ------------------------------ 1. RAJESH, S/O.VALSALAN, AGED 32 YEARS, CHIRAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KANNIMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADI P.O., KOLLAM. 2. JYOTHISH, S/O.VALSALAN, AGED 33 YEARS, CHIRAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL, KANNIMEL CHERRY, MARUTHADI P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------- B.A.No.3584 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.238 of 2009 of Sakthikulangara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 323 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.6.2009, while the defacto complainant, after attending a housewarming ceremony, went to the house of one Lalan, the accused persons attacked the defacto complainant. Lalan and his wife had agreed to arrange the marriage between their daughter and the defacto complainant. The allegation is that the accused persons did not relish that idea of marriage and attacked the defacto complainant. He sustained grievous injuries. Fracture of clavicle was reported in the wound certificate. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, 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 Crl.P.C. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl