IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3361 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.172/2009 OFTHEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSEDNOS. I& 2: ------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, MANU BHAVAN, VADAKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 2. SATHYAPALAN, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, RAMABHAVANAM, VADAKKUMBHAGOM MURI, THAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THEMKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3361 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1and 2 in Crime No.172/2009 of Thekkumbhagam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 341, 308 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the case diary. The prosecution case is that while the defacto complainant was retuning after supplying toddy in the toddy shop, he was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2 and two others. The first accused beat the defacto complainant with a chain. The second accused also did the same thing. The other accused caught hold of the defacto complainant. The wound certificate would disclose that serious injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant was admitted in the Hospital. The statement of the doctor who B.A. No. 3361 /2009 2 examined the defacto complainant was also recorded. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm