IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5419 of 2011 CRIME NO.589 OF 2011 OF ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ JACKY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, THANNIKUSHY HOUSE, PALINJAPALAM KARA, MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD, DEVIKULAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- S.I. OF POLICE, ADIMALI POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5419 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 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.589 of 2011 of Adimali Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 22.6.2011 at 8.30 P.M., the accused stabbed the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant sustained three incised wounds, two on his backside and one on the left forearm. The de facto complainant had to undergo surgery. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner could not be arrested as he was not available. The weapon of offence has to be recovered. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner is very serious BAIL APPL. NO.5419 OF 2011 :: 2 :: in nature. The de facto complainant had sustained very severe injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/