IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3671 of 2009() -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 675/2008 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- C.A. BASHEER, S/O. AHMMED HAJI, CHALUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NANNAMMUKKU AMSOM/DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION LIMITS). BY ADVS. SRI. M.V. BOSE SRI. VINOD MADHAVAN SMT. NISHA BOSE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No.3671 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009 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 first accused in Crime No.675/2008 of Changaramkulam Police Station in Malappuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are `under Sections. 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case in short is as follows:- The defacto complainant married the daughter of the 4th accused. Their relationship was not cordial and it ended in divorce. The daughter of the 4th accused filed a complaint against the defacto complainant, his father and mother under Section 498 (A) and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, the accused persons therein were granted Anticipatory Bail. Infuriated by this, the petitioner and the other accused hatched a criminal conspiracy and attacked the defacto complainant. On 15.8.2008, when the defacto complainant and his father were B.A.No. 3671 of 2009 2 going to the Mosque riding on a Motor Cycle, the accused persons followed them in a car and intercepted the Motor Bike and attacked the defacto complainant and his father with Knife, iron rod and other weapons. Accused Nos. 2,3 and 5 were hired goondas, according to the prosecution. The defacto complainant and his father sustained injuries. People of the locality came to the scene of occurrence and at that time some of the accused escaped. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were detained by the local people and they were arrested by the police and were produced before the court. 4. Accused Nos. 2,3 and 5 were granted Regular Bail. The 4th accused was granted Anticipatory Bail by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no serious injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant and that the petitioner is entitled to get Anticipatory Bail. 6. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioner. It is not necessary to consider the facts and contentions in detail, while disposing of the Bail application. The petitioner is not B.A.No. 3671 of 2009 3 entitled to get the discretionary relief under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln