IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6147 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.455/08 OF NOORANAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER -------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN LUZHIYATH VEETTIL, PUTHUPALIKUNNAM MURI NOORANAD. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- S.I. OF POLICE, NOORANAD POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6147 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 323, 326 and 308 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, de facto complainant was proceeding on a motorcycle accompanied by his brother-in-law in a car which followed him. While so, the petitioner, who was driving an auto rickshaw, overtook both these vehicles and asked the vehicles to be stopped. Thereafter, he got down from the auto rickshaw and fisted the driver of the car and when the de facto complainant intervened, he hit him against a pitching of the canal and he sustained a fracture. The incident happened on 13.9.2008 in the afternoon. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is no previous enmity between the petitioner and the de facto complainant, but some dispute arose on the manner in which the vehicles were driven on a canal road and the auto rickshaw hit the car etc. Hence, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. BA.6147/2008 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a motivated attack on the de facto complainant as well as the driver of the car and on the nature of the allegations made, it may not be fit to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, in a case of this nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. It is not sufficient if the petitioner apprehends arrest in a non-bailable offence. But, special circumstance must be made out to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. There is no such circumstance. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.