IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6611 of 2009 CRIME NO.577 OF 2009 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.5, 1 & 3: --------------------------------------- 1. AJITH PRABHATHAN, S/O. PRABHATHAN AGED 27, PRATHIBHA ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES, AKAMKUDI.P.O. NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPAD. 2. JOSE JOY S/O. M.P.JOY, AGED 38, MAPPILAYATH HOUSE, NANGIARKULANGARA.P.O. HARIPAD. 3. B.SAJAYNATH, S/O. VIJAYANPILLAI, AGED 27, VIJAYABHAVANAM, KOTTAKKAKAM.P.O. MUTTAM, NANGIARKULANGARA.P.O., HARIPAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/02/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO.949 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO.6611 OF 2009 and B.A.NO. 949 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of February, 2010 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. B.A.No.6611 of 2009 is filed by accused Nos.5, 1 and 3 in Crime No.577 of 2009 of Haripad Police Station, Alappuzha District. B.A.No.949 of 2010 is filed by accused No.2 in the aforesaid crime. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused No.5 (first petitioner in B.A.No.6611 of 2009) was arrested on 6.11.2009 and, therefore, the Bail Application has become infructuous in so far as it relates to the first petitioner. 3. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A. NOS.6611 of 2009 & 949 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 4. The prosecution case is the following: The second accused is an employee in a PVC pipe factory. The de facto complainant, Madhavankutty Nair, is the security guard in the factory. One U.B.Singh was also working as security guard in the factory. On 25.10.2009, a Sunday, on which day the factory remained closed, the accused persons demanded the de facto complainant to open the gate of the factory to enable them to consume liquor inside the factory premises. The de facto complainant was not willing to do so. The allegation is that at 9.20 PM, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant and U.B.Singh with dangerous weapons, resulting in injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and U.B.Singh. U.B.Singh sustained fracture of his nasal bone. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the case diary. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the injuries sustained by the de facto complainant and U.B.Singh and other attendant circumstances, I B.A. NOS.6611 of 2009 & 949 OF 2010 :: 3 :: do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the petitioners are released on bail, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/