IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8777 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.614/11 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- SHANAVAS, AGED 28 YEARS METHARUVILAKAM, VAKKOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8777 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 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.614 of 2011 of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The petitioner had filed Bail Application No.7632 of 2011 for the same relief and that application was dismissed by the order dated 26.9.2011. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 2 to 4 of the order are extracted below : “2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following : The de facto complainant was abused by the accused in filthy language. This was questioned by her children. Due to BA 8777/11 2 that enmity, the accused attacked the children of the de facto complainant with knife. One son of the de facto complainant lost his eye sight of the right eye as a result of the stab injuries caused by the accused. That son also sustained stab injury on his back. The other son of the de facto complainant sustained stab injury on the muscle of his right hand. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.” 4. No grounds are made out to take a different view. There is no change of circumstances or any subsequent BA 8777/11 3 developments. It is submitted that the injured is involved in several crimes and he is included in the goonda list. That by itself is not a sufficient ground for taking a view different from the view taken in Bail Application No.7632 of 2011. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl