IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7293 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.114/2009 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------- PRADEEP CHANDRAN, KANDISSERIL, KAITHA SOUTH, CHETTIKULANGARA. BY ADV. MR.K.HARILAL RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKKARA. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7293 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 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 accused No.4 in Crime No.114/2009 of Mavelikkara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506(ii), 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 02.03.2009 at about midnight, the accused persons came near the front gate of the house of one Kalidasan, the injured, armed with deadly weapons like iron rods and attacked Kalidasan with those weapons, causing several injuries including two fractures. Kalidasan was taken to the hospital. Since he was admitted in the intensive care unit, his nephew gave the F.I. Statement. The F.I. Statement would disclose that the incident occurred due to the rivalry of the accused persons towards the injured, since the injured persuaded them not to create trouble at the time of a festival on “Kumbha B.A. No. 7293 of 2009 2 Bharani” day. The injured, namely, Kalidasan was working abroad and he had come to the native place on leave. 4. I have perused the Case Diary file and the wound certificate. 5. Taking into account facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the injuries sustained by the injured, 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 the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln