IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1571 of 2010 CRIME NO.214 OF 2010 OF KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- PRASANNAN @ UNNII, S/O. RAGHAVAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUMPURAM, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTIYAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 1571 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 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.214 of 2010 of Kottiyam Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 16.2.2009 at 9.40 PM, the accused attacked the de facto complainant and his brother with a sword. They sustained injuries. The wound certificate shows that the de facto complainant sustained a bleeding lacerated wound on the scalp, whereas the brother of the de facto complainant sustained four lacerated injuries on the scalp. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained B.A. NO. 1571 OF 2010 :: 2 :: by the de facto complainant and his brother, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/