IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7645 of 2009() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.252/2009 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONR/ACCUSED NO.3: ------------------------------------------ SHINOJ.V,AGED 28 YEARS,S/O.CHANDRAN, KANIYAMPADY HOUSE,KOMMERI.P.O,KOLAYAD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.JOHNY THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE-REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,(CRIME NO.252 OF 2009 OF DHARMADAM POLICE STATION), THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7645 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th 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.3 in Crime No.252/2009 of Dharmadam Police Station, Kannur. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 341, 324, 427 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 30/10/2009 at 11.30 P.M, when the de facto complainant was sleeping in his house, the accused persons forcibly entered into the compound and called the de facto complainant to come out. The de facto complainant was directed to show the house of one Kokku. The de facto complainant refused and thereupon the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with chopper and sticks. He sustained incised wounds and other injuries. It is also alleged that the accused persons caused destruction to the household articles belonging B.A. No. 7645/ 2009 2 to the de facto complainant. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the accused, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail 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