IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6791 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 735/2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ AJITHKUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.RAJAN, 'RAJEEVAM' UCHAKADA, PAYATTUVILA.PO, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC POSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6791 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 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 accused in Crime No.735/2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 354, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The victim is the neighbour of the petitioner. She is aged 54 years. The allegation is that the accused trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant and beat her several times with torch. The victim went to the house of the accused and sought the help of the parents of the accused. There also, she was beaten with torch by the accused. It is stated that the parents of the accused took her to the nearby Ayurvedic Physician. Thereafter, she was taken to the hospital. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. It was contended that the petitioner is involved in several cases including a murder case. Proceedings were B.A. No. 6791 of 2009 2 initiated against him under the Kerala Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln