IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3056 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRMP.1312/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.81/2009 OF KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- GIREESH,S/O.GEETHA,AGED 22 YEARS, KAVUNGAL HOUSE,KUZHALMANNAM,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KUZHALMANNAM POLICE STATION,(CRIME NO.81/09 PALAKKAD,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 3056 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th 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 petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.81/2009 of Kuzhalmannam Police Station, Palakkad. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324, 506(ii), 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 18/04/2009, on the ground that investigation was in progress and the police had to recover weapons of the offence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another Bail Application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed as per Annexure A order dated 15/05/2009. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this Bail Application before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that anticipatory bail was granted to the accused Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Sessions B.A. No. 3056 / 2009 2 Judge on 18/04/2009. 4. I have gone through the case diary. Overt acts alleged against accused Nos. 2 and 3 are different from those alleged against the first accused. On that ground the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos. 2 and 3. The allegation is that the petitioner has used an iron rod for the commission of the offence, whereby the defacto complainant has sustained fracture on the left ulna. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injuries sustained and the weapons allegedly used by the petitioner (first accused), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm