IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6932 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.528/2009 OF BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER (S): 1ST ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------- SANDU S/O.CHANDRAN KOVILUVILA VEEDU KODINADA, VADAKKEVILA BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6932 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.528 of 2009 of Balaramapuram Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 23.9.2009, the de facto complainant was beaten by the accused with iron pipe. The de facto complainant sustained serious injuries. The treatment records would indicate that he sustained fracture of left ulna and fracture of left orbital wall. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant had consumed alcohol and he had a quarrel with some other persons. The petitioner is an autorickshaw driver and those persons were travelling in the autorickshaw. Probably because the de facto complainant could not identify those persons, the petitioner was falsely implicated in the crime. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the BA No.6932/2009 2 petitioner that the FIR was registered only on 3.10.2009. In answer, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the FI statement, the name of the petitioner alone is mentioned. There is no case for the de facto complainant that he was attacked by any person other than the petitioner. It is also submitted that the de facto complainant was in the hospital till 3.10.2009 and immediately on discharge from the hospital, FIR was registered. It is stated by the de facto complainant that though intimation was given by the hospital authorities, the police did not go to the hospital. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injury sustained by the de facto complainant and other circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to the 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. Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl