IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5912 of 2009 CRIME NO.702 OF 2009 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ AJU, S/O.MANIYAN, ANANDA BHAVAN, MUTTAIKKAD, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 5912 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 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 accused No.1 in Crime No.702 of 2009 of Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 452, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.9.2009 at 9.30 PM, the petitioner along with the other accused persons forcibly entered into the house of the de facto complainant, attacked her and her son and took away a mobile phone and Rs.5,000/-. The petitioner was running the autorickshaw owned by the de facto complainant on a rental basis. It is also alleged that the petitioner did not pay the rental to the de facto complainant for the last few months before the date of incident. The de facto complainant demanded the amount. On account of that rivalry, the petitioner and other accused persons B.A. NO. 5912 OF 2009 :: 2 :: trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and attacked her and her son. 4. After hearing the application of bail in detail on 20.10.2009, an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to settle the dispute with the de facto complainant. The case was adjourned on several occasions thereafter. It is reported that the de facto complainant is not prepared to settle the dispute. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to 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 investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/