IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6833 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.509/2009 OF ANCHAL POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED A1: ----------------------------------------- RENJITH, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI RATHEESH MANDIRAM, ANCHAL, NEDIYARA PO ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 6833 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 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 first accused in Crime No.509 of 2009 of Anchal Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused persons are under Sections 323, 326 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: On 3/10/2009, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with a stone, which resulted in the loss of his tooth. It is also alleged that the accused persons manhandled the de facto complainant's daughter. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that his daughter was being teased by the accused persons. The de facto complainant questioned the same. The alleged incident took place as a result of the earlier incident of the de facto complainant questioning the accused. B.A. No. 6833/ 2009 2 4. B.A.No.6645 of 2009 filed by the 3rd accused was dismissed by the order dated 16/11/2009. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, the injury sustained and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. 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 scm