IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3385 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.73/2009 OF KUTTAMPUZHA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- PRAMOD T.K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, THOMBRAKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTAMPUZHA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------- B.A.No.3385 of 2009 ----------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.73 of 2009 of Kuttampuzha Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with his two friends went to the house of the defacto complainant and enquired with his father whether the defacto complainant was there. Father of the defacto complainant told the petitioner that the defacto complainant was making curry in the kitchen. The petitioner went to the kitchen and caught hold of the defacto complainant. The friends of the accused tried to rescue the defacto complainant. By that time, the petitioner stabbed the defacto complainant with a knife. The defacto complainant sustained injuries and he was taken to the hospital. The wound certificate shows that the defacto complainant has sustained an incised wound. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the BA No.3385/2009 2 case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and other circumstances, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl