IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3533 of 2009 CRIME NO.270 OF 2009 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- ASOKAN, AGED 41 YEARS, SOORYAMANGALATHU VEEDU, VALAYIDAM MURI, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT: 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 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 3533 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 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 accused in Crime No.270 of 2009 of Chadayamangalam Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 324, 308 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The marriage between the petitioner and the de facto complainant took place nineteen years ago. Three children were born in that wedlock. Due to difference of opinion, the de facto complainant/wife was living separately in her house. Due to jaundice, she was admitted in the hospital. On 30.4.2009, the petitioner requested the de facto complainant to go home for the purpose of putting signature of the de facto complainant in certain forms for getting sanction for an electric post for taking electricity connection to the newly constructed B.A. NO. 3533 OF 2009 :: 2 :: house. On the request of the petitioner, the de facto complainant was discharged from the hospital on 30.4.2009. On 30.4.2009 itself, while the de facto complainant was at home, she was attacked by the petitioner with a chopper. The following injuries were noted in the Accident register-cum-wound certificate: “(1) Oedema both eye lids and diffuse contusion on the forehead. Lacerated bleeding wound bone deep injury on the right side of forehead of size 9 cms x 3.5 cms irregular edges. (2) Two adjacent lacerated irregular bone deep injury, profuse bleeding on the lower jaw of approximate size 7 cms x 3 cms and another of size 6 cms x 3.5 cms. (3) Lacerated bone deep injury on the left side of the forehead of size 2 cms x 1 cm. (4) Lacerated bleeding wound on the left zygomatic region of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm.” 4. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is B.A. NO. 3533 OF 2009 :: 3 :: granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner sustained injuries as he was hit with a stone on his head by the de facto complainant. Annexure B out patient record issued by the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram is produced in support of the contention. Annexure B shows that the petitioner had gone to the hospital on 5.5.2009. It is also noted therein that the petitioner was not willing for taking CT scan of the head. No serious injuries are noted in Annexure B. Prima facie, it cannot be held that Annexure-B has any connection with the incident alleged by the prosecution. Even if it were so, the injuries on the body of the accused, if any, are to be explained by the prosecution at the time of trial. That is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/