IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5295 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.717/2009 OF PANDALAM POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1,2 & 4 ----------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI, AGED 45 YEARS, PADINJARE EDAVATTATHU VEEDU, PANAGADU, KULANADA. 2. THANKAPPAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VALIYAKUNNIL VADAKKE CHARUVIL VEEDU, KARAKKAD, MULAKKUZHA. 3. VIJAYAN, AGED 35 YEARS, THAKKULANJI PADINJATTATHIL, KOZHUVALLOOR, MULAKKUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SAJJU.S 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 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5295 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 ORDER 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.717 of 2009 of Pandalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 324, 326, 452, 506(ii), 294(b) and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 10.8.2009, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and his two children at the residence of the de facto complainant and caused grievous injuries on the de facto complainant. The first accused is the nephew of the de facto complainant. It is alleged that he attacked the de facto complainant alleging that the de facto complainant was against partitioning the co-ownership property. The de facto complainant sustained grievous injuries including fracture. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No.5295/2009 2 case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the injury sustained by the de facto complainant, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.5295/2009 3 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5295 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 ORDER It is submitted that the petitioners are trying to settle the dispute with the defacto complainant. But, there is a threat of arrest and therefore, the petitioners are not in a position to make effective talks. Post after two weeks. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested till the next posting date. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.5295/2009 4