IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5552 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.2647/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S):ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- KANAKAVEL, S/O.MUTHUSWAMY KOUDNER, AGED 45 YEARS, ATTAYAMPATHY KALAM, VELANTHAVALAM P.O., CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS.MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SMT.P.G.BABITHA. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S. BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5552 of 2009 ------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 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.241/2009 of Kozhinjampara Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner and the de facto complainant are brothers. The prosecution case is that on 19/8/2009, the accused assaulted the de facto complainant with a “Koduval”. The de facto complainant sustained the following injuries, as disclosed in the wound certificate: “incised injury over the Right Parietal region of the head exposing the underlying bone which is also fractured.” 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 5/11/2009, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to settle the disputes between the parties. An interim direction not to arrest the petitioner was also granted. The learned B.A. No.5552/2009 2 counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no instruction in the matter thereafter. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted to the petitioner. 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 scm