IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3424 of 2009 CRIME NO.557 OF 2009 CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- BIJESH, S/O.BAHARATHAN, OMANGALATH HOUSE, WEST CHALAKUDY DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3424 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th June, 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 accused in Crime No.557 of 2009 of Chalakudy Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 332, 294(b) and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 11.6.2009, while the de facto complainant was driving a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation bus, the accused person, who was driving an autorickshaw, overtook the bus and put the autorickshaw across the road. The de facto complainant stopped the vehicle. The petitioner uttered obscene words, caught hold of the de facto complainant, attacked him and also caused damage to some parts of the bus, thereby causing loss to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in an abkari case and also in another case where offence under the Arms Act is alleged. B.A. NO. 3424 OF 2009 :: 2 :: 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/