IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 863 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRIME NO. 14/2010 OF PERINGOME POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT ................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- JIJO JOSEPH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O ALICE, PARUNTHU VEETTIL HOUSE, ADUKKATTU MAHAL, VELLORA P.O., MATHAMANGALAM (VIA), KANNUR DIST. BY ADVS. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.P.M.SATHEESH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. (CRIME NO.14/2010 OF PLERINGOME POLICE STATION). BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 863 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010 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.14/2010 of Peringome Police Station, Kannur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 447 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 09.01.2010 at 9.P.M., the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant with a wooden reaper. The de facto complainant sustained “fracture of middle third of ulna”. The de facto complainant was admitted in the Pariyaram Medical College hospital. The First Information Statement shows that there was a quarrel between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, when the de facto complainant asked the petitioner to reduce the volume of T.V during midnight. There was exchange of words between the parties. It is alleged that the petitioner attacked the de facto complainant resulting in the fracture as aforesaid. B.A. No. 863 of 2010 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injury and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. If anticipatory bail is granted tot he petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case, For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the de facto complainant has political influence and that if the petitioner is arrested, there is every chance of the petitioner being manhandled by the police. It is also submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are neighbours and the petitioner intends to explore the possibilities of a settlement. In the facts and circumstances of the case, to facilitate the settlement between the parties, there will be a direction to the Sub Inspector of Police, Peringome Police Station not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 14/2010 for a period of three weeks from today. Hand over copy to both sides. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE B.A. No. 863 of 2010 3 ln