IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4633 of 2009 CRIME NO.425 OF 2009 OF CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. APPLICANT/ACCUSED ------------------------------------- BENNY, S/O.CHAKKALACKAL KOCHAPPAN, VETTUKATTU MURI, KODANOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERPU POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4633 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th August, 2009 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 first accused in Crime No.425 of 2009 of Cherpu Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 341, 326, 394 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner is the younger brother of the injured. The prosecution case is that on 22.6.2009, the petitioner took the de facto complainant as pillion rider on a motor bike. The petitioner had arranged accused Nos.2 to 5 to beat the de facto complainant and make him almost an invalid. At the place of incident, the petitioner slowed down the vehicle to facilitate the other accused to attack the de facto complainant. They executed the plan and the de facto complainant sustained fracture on both the legs and on his hand. He B.A. NO. 4633 OF 2009 :: 2 :: was hospitalized. The First Information Statement was recorded on 25.6.2009. The petitioner apprehends arrest on an accusation of having committed the offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant had various visa transactions and he had enemies and that they might have attacked the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that on 3.7.2009, the mother of the de facto complainant had submitted a petition to the police pointing out the atrocities committed by the de facto complainant at their residence. 5. It is not necessary to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the case put forward by each party is correct. The facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed from the case diary, would prima facie indicate the complicity of the petitioner in the case. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 B.A. NO. 4633 OF 2009 :: 3 :: of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/