IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl. No. 4091 of 2009 ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.299/2009 OF TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD --------------------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- NISHAD, S/O.KABEER, AGED 21 YEARS, 12/278, CHEMBALODE, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI. JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.07.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4091 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July, 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.299/2009 of Town South Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 326 r/w 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 6.6.2009, accused Nos. 1 and 2 beat the defacto complainant with a Cricket Bat. The defacto complainant sustained injuries. He was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. The defacto complainant sustained very serious injuries . 2. An application for Anticipatory Bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge. That application was disposed of as per order dated 14th July, 2009. Anticipatory Bail was granted in favour of the second accused on the ground that his name was not shown in the First Information Statement. The learned Sessions Judge considered all the relevant facts and held that the petitioner is not entitled to get an order for Anticipatory Bail. B.A.No. 4091 of 2009 2 3. I have perused the Case Diary and also noticed the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the story put forward by the prosecution cannot be believed. No motive is alleged. If the assault as spoken to by the defacto complainant occurred, he would have sustained more injuries at other places of his body as well. The petitioner is an Engineer. If he is arrested and detained, it would affect his prospects in life. 5. The defacto complainant is also an Engineer. He is young too. He sustained serious injuries on his face. The question whether the petitioner has a probable defence is not always a relevant consideration while dealing with an application for Anticipatory Bail. The contention of the parties cannot be decided on the merits in an application for Anticipatory Bail. If it is so done, it would cause prejudice either to the prosecution or to the accused. 4. Taking into account all 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. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN,JUDGE ln