IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2433 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.102/2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------- AKHIL, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN, PARAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, MANNADI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.102 OF 2010 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 2433 of 2010 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of May, 2010. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 read with Section 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, on 13.3.2010 at about at about 8.30 p.m. an autorickshaw driven by de facto complainant came to the premises of a temple to take passengers on a festival day, de facto complainant was attacked by petitioner (A1) and other accused in furtherance of common intention, attacked him. The de facto complainant sustained fracture on the left interior orbital region. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that Section 308 IPC is included only to see that petitioner does not get bail. It is also submitted that it may not be possible for the investigating officer to know the culpable intention of petitioner. The investigation is almost over and custodial interrogation of petitioner is not necessary in this case. [B.A.No.2433/2010] 2 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner had filed an application for anticipatory bail along with two other accused but petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court as per order dated 20.5.2010 in B.A. No.1713/2010, mainly on the ground that petitioner is the person who inflicted fracture by using granite stone on de facto complainant. There is no change of circumstance and, in a case of this nature, it may not be fit and proper to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. The incident happened on 13.3.2010 and petitioner has not been available for interrogation. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor. This Court, in the earlier bail bail application found, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the nature and gravity of offence and the injury sustained by de facto complainant that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to petitioner, though the case against 3rd and 4th accused stands on a different footing. I do not find any ground to take a different view, on considering all the relevant aspects. Petitioner is bound to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed: [B.A.No.2433/2010] 3 (1) Petitioner shall surrender before Investigating Officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. (2) Whether petitioner surrenders or not police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed against him in accordance with law. (3) No further application for anticipatory bail will be entered by this Court. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.