IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 73 of 2010() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.600/2009 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHAJAN KURIAKOSE, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, NAMBICHAN, KUDIYIL, NERYAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.73 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of January, 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.600/2009 of Oonnukal Police Station, Ernakulam. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 27/11/2009 at 7 P.M, the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with a hook used by Headload workers and thereby the de facto complainant sustained fracture on his nasal bone. The injured was admitted in the hospital and he had to undergo a surgery. The petitioner is a Headload worker. He questioned the de facto complainant for having collected Rs.35/- as autorickshaw charge from two persons. The de facto complainant is an autorickshaw driver. It is alleged that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.10/- from the de facto complainant. The petitioner stated that he would not return B.A. No.73/2010 2 Rs.10/- to the de facto complainant as the latter had charged from two persons autorickshaw charges at a higher rate. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant was standing near a “Thattukada”, the accused attacked him with a hook and thereby the de facto complainant sustained injuries. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The injuries sustained by the de facto complainant are grave in nature. 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. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm