IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2011 / 12TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5735 of 2011 CRMP.1842/2011 OF ADDIL SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO.435 OF 2011 OF MARARIKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- SIBI RAJAN,S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, JYOTHI NIVAS,MAITHARA MARKET PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SRI.T.K.SUJITH SMT.K.VIDYAMANUVILSAN SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MARARIKULAM,REP.THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5735 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2011 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.435 of 2011 of Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 341 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant is a 51 year old woman. She is residing with her mother aged 78 years in a house near the house of the accused. The de facto complainant and her mother are the only inmates in their house. The husband of the de facto complainant abandoned her. On 23.5.2011, the mother of the de facto complainant while going to the ration shop, left the de facto complainant at the residence of the petitioner. On 23.5.2011, when the accused was ironing his dress, BAIL APPL. NO. 5735 OF 2011 :: 2 :: the de facto complainant stood near him. The allegation is that at that juncture, the accused caught hold of the hand of the de facto complainant and pressed the hot electric iron box on her hand. She sustained serious burn injuries. After some time, the mother of the de facto complainant took her to the house. It would appear that the de facto complainant is suffering from epilepsy. 4. The matter gained attention of the people of the locality. Newspaper reports appeared. A lady advocate practicing in the High Court took up the matter and brought to the notice of the High Court. As per the order dated 30.6.2011, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Alappuzha to enquire into and report about the affairs of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant was thereafter, admitted in the hospital. The First Information Report was registered. Investigation is pending. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore, he has filed this application for anticipatory bail. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner is employed in the Kerala State Electricity Board and if he is arrested and detained in jail, it would affect his job as well. BAIL APPL. NO. 5735 OF 2011 :: 3 :: 6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Bail Application. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved in C.C.No.973 of 2010, pending before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class I, Alappuzha. The petitioner has criminal antecedents. The injury sustained by the de facto complainant is grievous in nature. It is also submitted that the petitioner is absconding. Whereabouts of the petitioner are not traced out. 7. 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. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. 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 ahz/