IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5971 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.918/2009 OF KUNDARA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ GIREESH,GIRIJA VILASOM,ELAVOOR CHRIYIL, PALLIMON VILLAGE,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): STATE/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUNDARA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5971 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.918 of 2009 of Kundara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 294(b), 324, 308 and 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary and the wound certificate. 4. The prosecution case is that on 31.8.2009, at 9 P.M., the accused persons illegally entered into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked him with deadly weapons. He sustained cut injuries. He was admitted in the hospital on 31.8.2009 and he was discharged only on 7.9.2009. The FI statement would disclose that even after the de facto complainant tried to escape after the first attack, he was followed by accused No.1 and he was again attacked with a BA No.5971/2009 2 deadly weapon. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury sustained by the de facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get 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 csl