IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3022 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 248/2008 OF MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION ....................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- 1. JAYAN, S/O. GOVINDAN,AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUPPUMARAPURA, KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA,PALAKKAD 2. VEERESH,S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND MUKAI SIVA TEMPLE,THEKKINIPURA, CHOKKANATHAPURAM, PALAKKAD. 3. KALLUKUTTY ALIAS MOHANAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS,RESIDING AT KUNNATHPURA HARIJAN COLONY,KADUKKAMKUNNAM, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.N. RAGHURAJ SRI.A.V.RAVI SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT: -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, MALAMPUZHA,PALAKKAD,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY SRI. M. S. BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3022 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.248/2008 of Malampuzha Police Station. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Section 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the order dated 09.02.2009, Anticipatory Bail was granted in favour of the third accused by the Sessions Judge. By the same order, Anticipatory Bail was denied to accused No. 4. It is also submitted that Anticipatory Bail was refused to the first accused by the Sessions Judge as per the order dated 02.03.2009. 4. The defacto complainant as well as the accused persons have different political allegiance. The allegation is that on account of difference in political ideologies, the petitioners and other accused wanted to do away with the defacto complainant. Accordingly, the offence was committed. I have perused the B.A. No. 3022 of 2009 2 Case Diary and noted the injuries sustained by the defacto complainant. He has sustained fracture of the skull and other serious injuries. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioners, it would seriously affect the proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln