IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7441 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1119/2009 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANI BHAVANAM, KOTTAKKUPURAM MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7441 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is the third application filed by the petitioner. Bail Application Nos.6545 of 2009 and 6902 of 2009 filed by him were dismissed. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 30th November, 2009 in Bail Application No.6902 of 2009 is extracted below: “This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1119/2009 of Karunagappally Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 294(b), 324, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 24/10/2009 at about 8 P.M., the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and stabbed him several times. Son of the de facto complainant intervened. He was also stabbed. The neighbours came to the scene. The allegation is that the accused stabbed those four persons also. Thus, six persons sustained incised wounds on account of the attack made by BA No.7441/2009 2 the petitioner. It is submitted that the son of the de facto complainant is still undergoing treatment. The accident register-cum-wound certificate would disclose that all the victims have sustained incised wounds. 4. The petitioner moved B.A.No. 6545/2009 before this Court, which was dismissed as per the order dated 10.11.2009. The present Bail Application was filed on 17.11.2009. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that three of the persons, who have sustained injuries, are still in the hospital. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that six persons sustained incised wounds on account of the attack made by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner is a neighbour of the de facto complainant. If he is released on bail, it would create tension in the area, as rightly point out by the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. There is no justification for releasing the accused while three of the injured are still in the hospital. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail BA No.7441/2009 3 Application is dismissed.” 2. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the tension prevails in the area even now. If the petitioner is released on bail, it would be even to his disadvantage. The investigation of the case is not over. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the circumstances mentioned in the order dated 30th November, 2009, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl