IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 382 of 2010() ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 488/2009 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------- NISSAM NASSAR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.NASSAR VELLOOPPARAMBIL, NADACLA, KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT & SRI.M.L.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/STATE: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. ADVS. SRI.BIMAL K.NATH FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.S.JAMAL FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.E.M.SUNIL KUMAR FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.SREEVALSAN.V FOR ADDL.R2 BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 382 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of February, 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 the accused in Crime No.488/2009 of Erattupetta Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There was a dispute between the petitioner and his father on the one side and the de facto complainant on the other side in respect of a shop building. The shop building belonged to the father of the petitioner. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that the father of the petitioner agreed to be sell the building to the de facto complainant and an advance amount was paid. The transaction was not completed. There was a dispute between the parties in respect of the same. While so, the shop room in question was transferred to the petitioner by his father. 4. The prosecution case is that there was an attempt to settle the dispute between the parties. A settlement talk was B.A. No. 382 of 2010 2 arranged in the house of Sathar, the paternal uncle of the petitioner. On 25.10.2009, the de facto complainant and the mediators assembled in the house of Sathar. The petitioner and his father came later. Immediately after the petitioner entered into the hall, he attacked the de facto complainant with a knife. The de facto complainant sustained injuries on his head. There was profuse bleeding. He could manage to take the knife from the petitioner. At that time , the petitioner took out another knife and tried to attack the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was taken to the M.E.S Hospital and on their advise he was taken to Matha Hospital. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was foisted at the instance of the de facto complainant. On 22.10.2009 at 7.45 A.M., the de facto complainant criminally trespassed into the house of the petitioner and manhandled his father and mother. Crime No.481/2009 was registered by Erattupetta Police against the de facto complainant and others. It is also pointed out that on 22.10.2009, the petitioner and his father filed O.S.No.197/2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Erattupetta against the de facto complainant and others for B.A. No. 382 of 2010 3 injunction in respect of the property in dispute. It is stated that interim injunction was granted by the Court in favour of the petitioner. 6. I have perused the Case Diary also. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, 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. 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 ln