IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3881 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.510/2009 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DIST. ......... PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------------- VISHNU V., S/O.VISWANATHAN, AGED 21 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH, MUTHUKULAM P.O., MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SRI.B.H.ANSIL RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 3881 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of July, 2010 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 279, 337 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, two tipper lorries were speeding against each other and while so, petitioner drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and overtook the other lorry, while the wheel struck against the wheel of the other lorry. The other lorry went out of the road and it brushed against a pedestrian and thereby committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is involved in this case. This is only a case of an accident, and no injury is sustained by de facto complainant. Therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations made against petitioner is serious B.A. No. 3881 / 2010 2 in nature. Whether the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code is involved or not is being investigated into. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the manner in which the incident happened, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner has not made out any ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner may seek regular bail and he will be at liberty to put forward his contentions before the court concerned. 6. No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this court hereafter. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln