IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2010 / 26TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2143 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.145/2004 OF KODENCHERY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DIST. ..................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------ SONY JACOB, S/O.JACOB JOHN, AGED 28 YEARS, DRIVER, MYLAPRA HOUSE, ELOOR P.O., ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KODENCHERY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K. MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2143 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest connected with Crime No. 145/2004 of Kodenchery Police Station in which offence punishable under Section 379 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. are involved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that all the accused together with their common object stolen a car owned by the defacto complainant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in Bail Application No.2143 of 2010 2 progress. It is also relevant to note the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries which are also relevant facts which persuade this Court to decline anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE mns/