IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4420 of 2008() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.679/2008 OF EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 4 : -------------------------------------------- 1. SHERIFF, S/O.SHEIK PAREED, ATTUKAL PURAYIDAM, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM. 2. SAJITHA, W/O.SHERIFF, ATTUKAL PURAYIDAM, THAMARAKULAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN RESPONDENT/STATE : ------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. -------------------------------------- Bail Application No.4420 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 308, 324, 323, 294(b) and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. According to the prosecution, accused nos.1 to 4 committed various offences against the defacto complainant and he sustained stab injuries. Petitioners are accused nos. 1 and 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant is accused in various cases involving offence under the NDPS Act and the petitioners' daughter was abused by the defacto complainant. No offence under Section 308 is involved, since there is no serious injury and hence, they may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is also submitted that the second petitioner is not involved in the offence. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant sustained stab injuries on several parts of the body BA No.4420/08 2 and one of the injuries was serious in nature and hence, he was referred to the Medical College hospital. There are materials in the case diary to reveal that the alleged offences committed by the petitioners and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. Learned public prosecutor also submitted that the case diary will reveal the involvement of the second petitioner also in the offence. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that this is not the case exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Crl.P.C. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE csl