IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH APRIL 2010 / 30TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2300 of 2010(B) ----------------------------- CRIME NO.215/2010 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED --------------------------------------- 1. ABHILASH, CHARUVIL VEEDU, VADAKKEKKARA, THRIKKARUVA, ASHTAMUDI, KOLLAM. 2. AJMAL, KALLUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEKKARA, THRIKKARUVA, ASTHTAMUDI, KOLLAM. 3. ANEESH, KOCHUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEKKARA, THRIKKARUVA, ASHTAMUDI, KOLLAM. 4. AMEER, VALIYAVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEKKARA, THRIKKARUVA, ASHTAMUDI, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT : COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K. MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Bail Application No.2300 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th 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 petitioners apprehend arrest connected with Crime No.215 of 2010 of Anchalummoodu Police Station in which offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 452, 427 & 308 r/w 149 of I.P.C. are involved. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that on 28.02.2010 at about 3.15 p.m the petitioners attacked the defacto complainant for the reason that the defacto complainant had questioned the accused persons regarding their purchase of cigarette from a super market. As per the allegation the defacto complainant was inflicted injuries outside a shop room and there happened some damages to the shop room. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No. 2300 of 2010 -:2:- 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 petitioners as the same will adversely affect the investigation in the above crime which is now in progress. Considering the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the weapons used to inflict such injuries, it is not proper for this Court to grant anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners at this stage. In the result, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 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 accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE rtr/