IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 141 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.2034/2009 OF KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- VISHNU, S/O.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 24 YEARS, BINU BHAVAN, KULAKKADA EAST MURI, KULAKKADA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.141 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2034 of 2009 of Kottarakara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 20 and 21 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.12.2009, the accused was transporting sand in a lorry. The C.I. of Police, Kottarakara, who was on patrol duty, gave signal to stop the vehicle. The accused did not obey. He drove the lorry in high speed. The C.I. of Police followed the lorry. The petitioner, who was driving the lorry, jumped out of the running lorry. The lorry hit against a school boy. However, the school boy escaped. His bicycle was damaged. It is alleged that river sand was found in the lorry and the petitioner was transporting the river sand illegally. That was the reason, he did not stop the vehicle when BA No.141/2010 2 the C.I. of Police gave signal to stop. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any 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