IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 1184 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 107/2010 OF VARKALA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 : ---------------------------------- SAJITH @ KUNJUMON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SARANGADHARAN, EARL VEEDU, PULLANIMMOODU, EDAVA, VARKALA, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1184 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of March, 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 accused No.1 in Crime No. 107/2010 of Varkala Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have gone through the Case Diary as well. The injury resulting in the fracture sustained by the de facto complainant is attributable to the attack made by the petitioner. The de facto complainant has sustained fracture on his nasal bone. He was admitted in the hospital and he was later referred to E.N.T Surgeon. The discharge certificate is not seen in the Case Diary. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit B.A. No. 1184 of 2010 2 case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln