IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8861 of 2011 CRIME NO.140 OF 2009 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION. PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.6: ------------------------------ SAJITH,AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SARASAPPAN,CHERUKALATHIL HOUSE, POWER HOUSE WARD, ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 8861 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.140 of 2009 of Alappuzha North Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 6.3.2009 at 11.45 P.M., the accused persons broke open the door of the house of the defacto complainant and attacked him with cricket bats, sword and acid. The defacto complainant sustained very serious injuries. The specific overt act alleged against the petitioner is that he poured acid on the body of the defacto complainant. BAIL APPL. NO. 8861 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. The injuries sustained by the defacto complainant are grave. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/