IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 7087 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.486/2009 OF KILIKOLLUR POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 ---------------------------------------- AJITH ANTONY,S/O.ANTONY,RESIDING AT BUNGALOWIL HOUSE, S-7,THOMAS NAGAR,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7087 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.486 of 2009 of Kilikollur Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a counter case registered as Crime No.487 of 2009 under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In that case, accused Nos.1 and 2 in the present case are the injured persons. The counsel submitted that in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. BA No.7087/2009 2 5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in three other crimes registered in the same police station in the year 2008 where serious offences are alleged including offences under the Arms Act. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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 csl