IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2010 / 26TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2163 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.85/2010 OF RAMANKARI POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN @ PRAKATTU CHANDRAN, SON OF THAMPY, AGED 53 YEARS, PUTHUVAL, PUTHUKARY, ALAPPUZHA. 2. NITHIL, SON OF CHANDRAN, PUTHUVAL, PUTHUKARY, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMANKARI POLICE STATION. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K. MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2163 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioner apprehends arrest connected with Crime No. 85/2010 of Ramankari Police Station in which Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. are involved. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 27.2.2010 at about 10.00 pm, the petitioner and the other accused persons, due to the animosity towards the defacto complainant and in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted injuries on the defacto complainant. The first accused pushed the uncle of the defacto complainant when the complainant intervened, the second accused after abusing the defacto complainant verbally, hit one Pratheep, who is the defacto complainant's uncle's son on the forehead with a granite stone. Accused nos.2 and 4 slapped on the face of the defacto complainant and kicked him in Bail Application No.2163 of 2010 2 the stomach and one Souriarkutty came to the rescue of the complainant, the first accused kicked him below his abdomen. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, especially the gravity of the offences involved and the allegations, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in progress. It is also relevant to note the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries which are also relevant facts which persuade this Court to decline anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition and Bail Application No.2163 of 2010 3 accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE mns/