IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7170 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.378/2009 OF IRITTY POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. SHAJI, S/O.RAJAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PALLITHAZHE HOUSE, P.O.PAYAM, KOLIKADAVU, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. SUBHILASH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 32 YEARS, KOLIKADAVU, THALASSERY TALUK. 3. ANKARA RAJESH, S/O.RAJAN, 31 YEARS, KAYANATTIL HOUSE, KOLIKADAVU, THALASSERY TALUK. 4. SHAJI, S/O.GOPALAN, 28 YEARS, MARIKKANCHERI, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.VIJAI MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRITTY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 7170 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No. 378/2009 of Iritty Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 17.09.2009, the accused persons attacked the de facto complainant with iron rod and hit him with a stone. The wound certificate would disclose that the de facto complainant lost the lower second incisor tooth. It also discloses that the first incisor was loosened. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that crime No.379 of 2009 was registered on the information supplied by the second accused against the de facto complainant in the present case and others for the offences under Section 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. B.A. No. 7170 of 2009 2 5. The petitioners moved the Sessions Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that one of the reasons for rejecting the application for anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge was that the petitioners did not produce any document to show that a counter case was registered. 6. The allegations in the present case is that the petitioner was a member of the political party. He left that party and disassociated himself with the activities of the said political party. He was attacked as a result of a political rivalry. 7. The learned counsel submitted that in crime No.379/2009, it is alleged that the de facto complainant herein, namely, 'Karippai Pavithran' had attempted to molest the sister of the friend of the second accused and it was questioned by the accused persons. The present case is foisted on account of that rivalry. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioners, I do not think that this is a fit B.A. No. 7170 of 2009 3 case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. If the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln