IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2011 / 21ST SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6357 of 2011() ----------------------------- (Crime No.227 of 2011 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District.) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------- LUKOSE, S/O. DEVASSIA, KOLAMBEL HOUSE, PULICKATHOTTY.P.O, PATTAYKUDY, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I OF POLICE, KALIYAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN- 682 031. BY P.P.SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.6357 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.227 of 2011 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 498A, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The marriage between the petitioner and the defacto complainant took place on 1985. They have two daughters. They are married. The allegation is that the petitioner used to ill treat the defacto complainant. It is alleged that he is an alcoholic and he has relationship with other women. On 20.6.2011 at 6 P.M, the petitioner attacked the defacto complainant with a chair, resulting in serious injuries B.A. No.6357 OF 2011 2 including fracture. The defacto complainant was admitted in the hospital and she was discharged on 25.6.2011. The First Information Statement was lodged on 5.7.2011. It is stated by the defacto complainant that under the hope that the accused would mend his ways, she requested the hospital authorities not to intimate the police. However, even after discharging from the hospital, the harassment continued, which compelled her to report the matter to the police. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. 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. cms