IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4726 of 2009() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 147/2009 OF POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER/ IST ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- SOOSAI PAKIAM, S/O. STARLING, S.P. ILLOM, KARIPURAM PURAYIDOM, POZHIYOOR, KARODE VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI. G. SUDHEER RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POZHIYOOR POLICE STATION. BY SRI. M.S.BREEZ PUBLIC PROSECUTOR & SRI. G. HARIHARAN FOR ADDL. R3 & 4 THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 4726 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.147/2009 of Pozhiyoor Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 452, 308, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the Case Diary. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant produced for perusal the wound certificate in respect of the de facto complainant and the discharge card in respect of his mother. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire story put forward by the de facto complainant is false. A civil dispute is pending between the parties regarding a pathway. It is submitted that the story put forward by the de facto complainant as such was not believed by the police and several accused persons were deleted from the array of parties. 5. On a perusal of the records and also taking into account B.A. No. 4726/ 2009 2 the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor, prima facie, I am not inclined to accept the case put forward by the petitioner that the case is a foisted one against him. Materials on record, prima facie indicate the complicity of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I do not think that this is a fit case where the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would prejudicially affect the proper investigation of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a heart patient and if he is arrested by the police, his health condition may get worsened. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that this fact will be taken care of by the investigating officer, if the petitioner were to be arrested. With the above observations, the Bail Application is dismissed. Copy of this order shall be handed over to the learned Public Prosecutor. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm